Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKAR in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Employment of Women

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to strengthen the rights of employment and prospects for women.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The Government are committed to the advancement of equal opportunities and my right hon. Friend will continue to do all that he can to fulfil that commitment in relation to the employment of women.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the employment statistics issued today mask the fact that a growing number of women face unequal opportunities? Does not he accept that the evidence proves that our legislation which sought to attain equality for women, is failing? Is the Minister further aware that there is an underlying trend in clothing, textiles, offices and shops to eliminate employment for women? Does the hon. and learned Member realise that in my area of Huddersfield and Kirklees, two young girls are unemployed for every unemployed young man?

Mr. Mayhew: The importance of the contribution that women can make to the economy is very much in the Government's mind. I welcome the fact that the Manpower Services Commission is taking special steps to enlarge the number of opportunities open to women and to break clown any prejudice that may exist about the suitability of women for certain types of employment.

Mr. Stokes: Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that good women in industry and commerce expect to get on as a result of their own abilities and that they do not expect special privileges from the State?

Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. However, the theme behind our equal opportunities legislation is that there should be not privileged opportunities, but equal opportunities.

Mr. John Grant: Does not the Minister accept that the maternity clauses of the Employment Bill, the abolition of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, the Government's public expenditure cuts—which will squeeze nursery education and child-minding services—and the grim unemployment figures that were issued today, will lead to the devastation of employment for women? Is it not true that this woman-led Government is racist and sexist?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman's last observation spoiled his question. The purpose of the legislation, for which my Department is responsible, is to increase the number of opportunities that are available to women. We believe that that is very important.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not only our equal opportunities legislation that matters, but the way in which people behave? Would it not be a good idea for hon. Members to recognise that this House—with the exception of certain right hon. and hon. Ladies—is a glaring example of an area in which women are not fully represented?

Mr. Mayhew: I am certain that women do not expect privileges when it comes to selection for this House. We all value the contributions of those whom we have.

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to establish a statutory national minimum wage.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): No, Sir. The Government believe that pay is in general a matter best left for negotiation between employers and employees. Arrangements exist through the wages council machinery to set minimum rates of pay in industries where adequate arrangements for collective bargaining do not exist.

Mr. Race: Following the publication of the latest earnings survey, which shows that 9 per cent. of male full-time manual workers earn less than £60 a week and that 66 per cent. of women full-time manual workers earn less than that figure, is it not clear that collective bargaining has failed to abolish the differential that exists between the earnings of men and women? Is it not scandalous that the Government are abolishing schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, and that they propose to make no progress towards introducing the only legislation that could help us, namely, provisions for a statutory minimum wage?

Mr. Prior: No. I think that the collective bargaining procedures cover most of the country. They are better developed here than in any other country, and in cases where they have not provided the right answers, wages councils have been a great help.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Would not a statutory minimum wage enormously increase unemployment among less qualified and poorer sections of the working population? If that is what the Opposition want why do they not stand up and say so?

Mr. Prior: It is certainly the case that the forecasts show that a statutory minimum wage of two-thirds the average wage could have the effect of increasing unemployment by up to 50,000.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State realise that much of the low pay in this country is in the public service? If he does not intend to introduce legislation for a national minimum wage, will he keep an open mind on this

matter? In order to avoid a situation similar to that of the winter before last will he set up a working party to examine this?

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to set up any more working parties. We would be better off making up our own minds about these matters. I do not agree that there are many low-paid workers in the public sector. In fact, the public sector has done extremely well in the last few years, perhaps too well.

Mr. Budgen: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a national minimum wage would have the effect of pricing out of work the weakest sections of the community, particularly the unemployed young black people in my constituency?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend will be almost disappointed to hear that, very largely, I agree with what he says.

Unemployment

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rise in unemployment since May 1979.

Mr. Prior: Between May 1979 and April 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 145,800.

Mr. Jones: Is it not a fact that Britain's unemployment will soon reach the 2 million mark, with ever-increasing pressures on the vulnerable regions and localities of the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman fight in the Cabinet against the monetarist policy, and for fundamental changes in policy on unemployment?

Mr. Prior: The so-called monetarist policies that we are following are exactly the same as those followed by the previous Government. We should always be careful before committing ourselves to forecasts about the level of unemployment because one forecast produced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggested that by the end of 1979 the previous Government would have reduced unemployment to 700,000.

Mr. Bulmer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the warnings given by the last Government during the winter of discontent that wage and salary increases


substantially in excess of output will lead to rapidly rising unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I confirm that wholeheartedly. The more we can keep our increases in wages down, the better the prospects for the rate of inflation and for jobs. That is in no way inconsistent with the policy for controlling the growth of the money supply.

Mr. Radice: Do the Government understand that the situation in the Northern region is deteriorating dramatically and there are fewer and fewer vacancies with more and more unemployed people and redundancies every week? Does it need a national disaster to make the Government change their policy?

Mr. Prior: The position in the North, and particularly the North-East, is serious. However, one of the strange things is that there are still vacancies in that part of the world for a number of jobs, such as work on the railways. I hope that the hon. Member will do all that he can to see that such vacancies are filled.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that unemployment is increasing very rapidly in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the North of England? In the absence of any positive efforts by the Government to do something about this is he aware that there is a prevailing view that this Government were elected by the South for the benefit of the South?

Mr. Prior: I absolutely reject that view. As the former Prime Minister said, we are no longer in a position where we can print our way out of unemployment. The sooner we recognise that fact, the better.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Is it not a fact that unemployment doubled in the five years of the last Labour Government and did that not demonstrate that Socialist remedies for this evil simply do not work? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the only hope for those on the dole is a revival of the private sector, based on incentive and opportunity?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition have no remedies. Unemployment more than doubled under them. As a result we started this recession with double the amount of unemployment with which we started the last.

Mr. Varley: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what measures he has taken since last May to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I have supported Government policies.

Mr. Varley: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman has no more confidence in Government economic and industrial policies than we have? Is it not about time he started to stand up and fight for the unemployed instead of allowing the drift towards the 2 million unemployed mark by next winter?

Mr. Prior: When it comes to fighting, I need no lessons from the right hon. Member.

Disabled persons

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with measures currently in hand to encourage the employment of those suffering from a mental or physical handicap.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): This is an area in which none of us are satisfied. That is why I am fully behind the Manpower Services Commission's "Fit for Work" campaign—which relates specifically to mental and physical handicap—and its review of the existing quota provisions to see how best to protect employment opportunities for disabled people in the future.

Mr. Viggers: I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. Is it not a matter of great concern that, despite all efforts of successive Governments, the level of long-term unemployment among the disabled remains obstinately high? Is it not appropriate, therefore, that there should be a major initiative in this area?

Mr. Lester: The "Fit for Work" campaign is a major initiative in this direction. We now have 356 applications for awards under this scheme which will be made by the end of the year. Because the scheme is successful, the overall rate of unemployment for disabled people has fallen by 5·7 per cent. since February 1978.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the Minister accept that at a time of escalating general unemployment it is that much more difficult for the handicapped to get work


and to retain it? In these circumstances should there not be a call for more ATCs and sheltered workshops instead of cutting back on this type of provision?

Mr. Lester: For many disabled people the chance is not for employment in a sheltered workshop, but in the mainstream of employment. For that reason we have made no changes whatever in the services for disabled people.

Mr. Foster: Does the Minister realise that the chances of the physically disabled gaining employment are reducing day by day? Is it not time for a programme for the disabled that is parallel to the youth opportunities programme?

Mr. Lester: We already have many agencies doing this. We have the job introduction schemes, special aids to employment, adaptations for premises and equipment, and assistance with fares to work. On many of these things we have not yet been able to spend the budget that we are allowed.

Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that this weekend I attended the conference of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, when strong views were expressed about the increasing difficulties of its members in finding jobs? Will he arrange to consult that organisation and hear its views?

Mr. Lester: I am always prepared, as is my right hon. Friend, to consult anybody on problems of the disabled.

Mr. John Grant: Surely the Minister recognises that at a time of steeply rising unemployment, the disadvantaged groups, particularly the disabled, are hit disproportionately. Is it not time that the Government stopped wringing their hands and saying that they do their best to protect the disabled while at the same time cutting back in some areas, for example, rehabilitation centres? Will they not consider introducing new measures, or at least extending existing measures?

Mr. Lester: I hope that we shall continue to support all the measures that have proved successful. As already announced, the figures for unemployed disabled people have dropped from 147,404 in February 1978 to 138,996 in February 1980. That is not enough, but it is still a move in the right direction.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom; and how many are under 25 years of age.

Mr. Prior: At 10 April, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,522,921. An age analysis of this figure is not yet available, but about one in three are under 25.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit that the Government have finally abandoned even the pretence of attacking unemployment and are instead attacking the victims of unemployment by reducing their job opportunities and their benefits? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that one in three of the unemployed are young people under 25 years of age. In view of the fact that this number is likely to increase to even more alarming proportions, so that thousands—possibly over a million—young people will be unemployed and roaming the streets, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will finally abandon their strategy of using unemployment as an economic weapon?

Mr. Prior: The Government are not using unemployment as an economic weapon. The effect of the policies that the Government are adopting are more likely to lead to sustained employment than the sort of measures taken by the previous Government.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does my right hon. Friend reflect on the increasing number of unemployed people who were formerly in work making things that are now being made abroad and imported into this country without let or hindrance? Does he reflect on the fact that there is a traditional and historic Tory remedy to correct this situation?

Mr. Prior: I reflect on a number of Tory remedies to correct what my hon. Friend speaks about. If my hon. Friend is talking about import controls, he should address his remarks to the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: While many hon. Members do not believe that short


term measures are necessarily the answer to all our problems and feel that there is no substitute for a real job, may I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind, in future deliberations with his colleagues, that some of us were disappointed by his decision to scrap the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme? This decision will hit particularly hard some young people who are unemployed in the difficult regions. Will he consider these measures once again?

Mr. Prior: The number of people being aided in one way or another by Government measures is 401,000. That does not reduce the number on the unemployment register by 401,000. The registrable effect is somewhere in the region of 192,000. This shows that the Government are giving considerable aid, through a whole range of policies, to try to help with the unemployment problem.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend consider gradually extending the Manpower Services Commission youth opportunities programme into a system of national community service, whereby young people would have the opportunity to work, socially and environmentally, within the community and possibly in a cadet form of national service? This would bring together people from different backgrounds and, perhaps, solve some of the problems exhibited in Bristol not long ago.

Mr. Prior: It would be very expensive. My hon. Friend must recognise that a considerable increase in public expenditure would be involved. In the meantime, we have increased the youth opportunities programme by 25 per cent. this year compared with last year. The more that we can divert the effort of the youth opportunities programme into social work, home insulation work, and so on—and that is beginning to take place—the better for the whole community.

Mr. Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman refutes the charge that the Government are using unemployment as an economic weapon, but will he recall that when the House debated employment and training a month ago he confirmed to me that the Government were relying entirely on unemployment as a

means of getting down the level of wage settlements?

Mr. Prior: I certainly never said that. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly putting words into my mouth. The financial and monetary policy operated by the Government is precisely the same as that operated by the previous Government. I remember well Mr. Jenkins of The Guardian accusing the previous Government at the time of using unemployment as an economic weapon. The Government resisted it at the time as I do now.

Preston

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Preston travel-to-work area.

Mr. Jim Lester: On 10 April, the provisional unemployment rate in the Preston travel-to-work area was 6·8 per cent.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while this figure is not acceptable, it is not as high as it was under the previous Labour Government? Will he recognise the efforts of the Preston borough council, the Central Lancashire Development Corporation, the county council and his own Department in trying to retrieve the position by encouraging more investment in private industry?

Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Preston is typical of many areas that are necessarily going through structural change but approaching it in an imaginative and co-operative fashion. That is the best way of solving the problem of unemployment.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Will not the Minister confirm that the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) has misrepresented the position and that unemployment is now higher in the Preston travel-to-work area than it has been for 10 years?

Mr. Lester: When I answered the main question I was talking about Preston as a whole and not its halves.

Unemployment

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on future levels of unemployment.

Mr. Prior: I have never disguised from the House my view that a rise in unemployment was inevitable. But forecasts of future unemployment levels specifying particular levels are notoriously unreliable.

Mr. Evans: In view of the fact that it has been announced today that there are over 1½ million unemployed—the highest April figure since the end of the war—and that unemployment has increased by 145,000 under this Government, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a ministerial broadcast and to withdraw the Saatchi and Saatchi poster which said that Labour is not working? What is proved is that this Government's policies are not working. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are forecasts of 2½ million unemployed by next year if present Government policies are continued?

Mr. Prior: One thing of which we and the country are certain is that Labour Party policy did not work. In 10 months, under the previous Government, unemployment exceeded 1½ million, having more than doubled since they came into office. The previous Government forecast that there would be 700,000 unemployed by the end of 1979. In fact there were 1·3 million or so.

Mr. Haselhurst: To what extent does my hon. Friend think that we are increasingly faced with a structural unemployment problem? Even if the economy comes back on to a successful course of expansion we shall still have difficulty, without special schemes, in providing enough jobs for those seeking work because the number seeking work is increasing.

Mr. Prior: Yes, I believe that there is a structural problem. There will be difficult problems resulting from the increase in the number of young people coming into work in the next few years, the return of more women to the labour market and the effects of increasing technology, particularly microtechnology. I expect that we shall have to keep a number of schemes going. We may need to improve or increase these schemes. We must see how we get on.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Secretary of State aware that in some areas where structural change is occurring unemployment is ris-

ing and showing no signs of recovery? In Batley—in my constituency—unemployment is now 13 per cent. among men. Is he aware that in a town of 1,200 unemployed there are only 64 vacancies? Will he consult his colleagues in the Departments of Industry and Trade to consider particular aid for areas such as textile areas, to make sure that alternative jobs are provided as quickly as possible?

Mr. Prior: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There are difficult problems in particular areas. Structural change in those areas is not proving easy to solve and has not done so for a number of years. I shall take a look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I must hasten to add that I cannot promise him any quick solution.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the wide difference between levels of unemployment in the North and the South of the country make it imperative that people should be able to move house more easily? What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to impress upon the Secretary of State for the Environment that this is necessary?

Mr. Prior: The sale of council houses will do more to help the problem than any other single factor. Subsidies to aid mobility and cause movement to those parts of the country where jobs are available were ineffective in producing the answer. The right answer involves a combination of sensible regional policies and an improvement in the general level of the economy, which could be achieved if we consumed more of the goods that we produce at home.

School Leavers

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of school leavers currently unemployed in the North-West, Merseyside. Ormskirk and Kirkby, respectively.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 10 April the provisional numbers of school leavers aged under 18 registered as unemployed in the areas specified were:

North-West region
8,227


Merseyside special development area
4,143


Ormskirk employment office area
21


Kirkby employment office area
320

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of those disgraceful figures? Does he accept that thousands of school leavers in the North-West face an extremely bleak and unhappy future as a direct result of the Government's economic policies? Does he accept, in spite of what his right hon. Friend said earlier about the youth opportunities programme, that unemployment is extremely expensive in terms of human resources? Will he therefore urge a massive increase in the youth opportunities programme?

Mr. Lester: I am not ashamed of what we are trying to do in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I take the matter seriously. We must examine what we are doing and I visit the area regularly. I shall examine any proposals that the hon. Gentleman cares to make to support the scheme, for which he is asking that increased expenditure should be incurred. I should welcome his support in encouraging people to take part in the scheme to enable us to spend the money available. In the Merseyside area only 55 per cent. of the places are taken up. The problem does not involve money or places. People must be encouraged to use the scheme. I never fail to praise the good things that I see. I never suggest that Merseyside is an outcast area—and that is more helpful than anything else.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware of the Index training scheme which takes young people direct from school into training, in full co-operation with local firms and the local authority? Will the Government give us their blessing and support the scheme? Is he aware that if the Government did that we could train youngsters direct from school to take up permanent jobs at the end of the training?

Mr. Lester: I welcome the Index scheme as a good initiative. The only problem is that it is a two-year scheme and therefore does not fit the rules of either the youth opportunities programme or the STEP scheme. I encourage such moves. We are examining ways in which such schemes might be encouraged.

Employment Bill

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the likely value of compensation claims which may be made

under the terms of the Employment Bill by trade unionists to their employers who are unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of their union and who are dismissed by their employer as a result.

Mr. Mayhew: Such a claim would be on the ground of unfair dismissal. If it succeeds, the maximum compensation that can now be awarded is £16,090; but it is calculated by reference to the loss shown in each case to have resulted or to be likely to result from the dismissal.
Where pressure exerted by the union concerned induced the dismissal, the employer could join the union in the proceedings and the tribunal could order that the union contribute towards the compensation, up to 100 per cent.

Mr. Brown: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that £16,000 can never compensate a man who has given loyal service to his firm and who has done nothing more than cross swords with his union? Does he agree that such a figure is totally insufficient to compensate a man who merely wishes to continue working and drawing a wage from his firm?

Mr. Mayhew: The basis for compensation for unfair dismissal is divided into a basic award, a compensation award and an additional award which is based on the loss that results from the action complained of. We shall keep the matter under review. In 1978, when the limits were £14,770, fewer than 3 per cent. of awards were in excess of £3,000 and the median award was £375.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Should not the Minister be more concerned about the people in the steel industry who were declared redundant before the strike began and who worked their notice during the strike? Is he aware that, even when their notice expired, they were refused unemployment benefit? Is that not a reprehensible way for the Department to behave?

Mr. Mayhew: The provisions for such cases were decided under a statue passed by the last Government.

Trade Unions (Blacking)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what replies he has received to his consultative document


containing proposals for legislation to restrict blacking.

Mr. Mayhew: We received comments from over 60 organisations and very many individuals. Our revised proposals are contained in a new clause to the Employment Bill which we published before Easter and which was considered by this House last week.

Mr. Miller: Will my hon. and learned Friend take account of the fears expressed by component makers in the motor industry about whether firms in a contractual relationship with a customer who is in dispute should be allowed to recover damages if they suffer loss through being involved in that dispute, of which they form no part?

Mr. Mayhew: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will have noticed from our debate last week that the action taken against the supplier to whom he refers in his illustration must have, as its sole or principal purpose, the prevention or disruption of the supply of goods or services to the employer with whom the dispute is being conducted. It must also be capable of achieving, or likely to achieve, that result. That is a clearer and tighter restriction than that proposed in the working paper.

Mr. Ron Brown: Has the Minister any proposals to deal with lock-outs? If not, why not, in view of the damage being done to the country?

Mr. Mayhew: The new clause applies to lock-outs.

Manpower Services Commission

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when next he plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 24 April.

Mr. Madel: How many young unemployed people will be offered training by the Manpower Services Commission in order to assist in the Government's new scheme to help old people insulate their homes?

Mr. Lester: It is too early to say how many people are likely to be helped by the initiative. Officials are examining how

the scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, might be implemented.

Mr. Hooley: Will the Minister explain to the chairman of the MSC, now that unemployment has shot over the 1½ million mark, that we should be expanding skillcentres and training opportunities to provide skilled workers where there are shortages, rather than closing down skill-centres? Will he arrange to examine the arbitrary limits of 26 weeks or 12 weeks which do not help to give opportunities to the unemployed?

Mr. Lester: I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's final question. The chairman of the MSC assures me that as a result of the review of skillcentres, on which a decision is to be made today, more places overall will be available to provide better training in areas where that is most required.

Clegg Commission

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in his review of the future of the Clegg Commission.

Mr. Prior: The Government continue to keep the work of the commission under review.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In Heaven's name why? How many more reports do we have to have from this dangerous old loony before the Government realise the damage that he is doing to employment and services throughout the public sector?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend asks why we keep the commission going. It has a number of outstanding references which must be completed. After that we shall reconsider whether to keep the commission going.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about a matter near to the heart of Professor Clegg? Will he tell us why the university teachers had been promised a conclusion to their investigation by 1 October this year but have suddenly been told that it will not now be ready until mid-1981?

Mr. Prior: I shall need to have notice of that particular point but I see no reason why the results of the investigation should


not be ready before the middle of 1981. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. David Price: Is my right  Friend aware that Professor Clegg, effort on the professions supplementary to medicine throws a great deal of doubt upon the intellectual ability of that commission to find comparability? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that as a result it puts great prejudice on the Whitley Council which should be handling these matters?

Mr. Prior: I feel sorry for the professor. When he produces a report that keeps down the level of wage settlements he is criticised. When he produces a report that increases the level of wage settlements he is also criticised. He is obviously in the position not unknown to some other people. He cannot win.

Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time in the House, now, to repudiate the offensive language used by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? After all, the Government are continuing with the Clegg commission, they rely on its recommendations and as far as we know they have supported those recommendations. Is it not also a question of good manners?

Mr. Prior: This is the second time my hon. Friend has referred to Professor Clegg in his rather unflattering way. On the last occasion I repudiated his reference. Professor Clegg has a difficult job to do and I do not think that he wishes to go on doing it. That is another reason perhaps, why we should reconsider the future of the commission. I would like to thank Professor Clegg for the hard work that he has done.

Unemployment

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Prior: At 10 April the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,522,921.

Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures he has announced today are further proof that the Tory Party election manifesto was a tissue of

lies? Is he also aware that fear is increasing in many regions of the country over the rising tide of unemployment? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Employment, exerted himself in Cabinet and made it clear to his colleagues that their policies will lead this country into further disaster?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. We never in any way misled the country as to the likely difficulties of getting down the level of unemployment. That was in stark contrast to the Labour manifesto, and slogan of 1974 which was "Back to Work with Labour". Their policy resulted in a doubling of the employment figures.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he intends to urge upon his Cabinet colleagues the taking of steps that will prevent the undermining of the industrial base of this country? When will my right hon. Friend make representations that will bring about some action from the Government in order to provide fair competition for the textile industry which is now suffering at least one mill closure every week? That is something which I am not prepared to tolerate any longer.

Mr. Prior: The textile industry, along with a number of other industries is going through a difficult period of recession. However, I do not believe that, as a nation, we shall get out of our difficulties by controlling imports at a time when Britain's paramount need is to export more goods and to export them more competitively.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the speech made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the weekend—and underlined in a radio programme at Sunday lunchtime—which clearly indicates that the right hon. Gentleman is not happy with Government policy, even though he is a non-interventionist, will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is doing, in discussion with the Prime Minister to change Government policy? If Government policies are not to be changed when will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends get rid of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will choose an oportunity of questioning my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that not only do we


have to take account of the effect of the increase in the money supply but that we also have to recognise that trading and human factors also contribute. That is something that the Government take very much to heart.

Professional and Executive Register

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the professional and executive register.

Mr. Jim Lester: Following a full review of professional and executive recruitment by the Manpower Services Commission my right hon. Friend has agreed to the MSC's proposal that a specialist public employment service should continue to be provided at the professional and executive levels. PER will therefore remain as a fee-charging service, but changes in operating methods are to be made which will enable significant financial and staff savings to be achieved. The MSC will monitor the restyled service closely and will make a further full review by September 1981.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister will agree that most of the people who work on the professional and executive register will be pleased to know that a decision has been made but that they also will be worried about the continuing indications that their service will be further reviewed. Will the Minister confirm that their jobs are secure?

Mr. Lester: I can confirm that a review has taken place and that we are trying new and more effective methods of operating PER. If the staff of PER operate those methods effectively their jobs will remain secure.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 22 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the dangerous situation in the Middle East, the respect in which Britain is held in that part of the world, the international prestige of her right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and the restrictions currently imposed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—on American foreign policy, there is both an excellent opportunity and an urgent need for Britain—with or without our European partners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to take an early initiative to bring peace to that area by setting in train measures leading to the just establishment of the Palestinian State that has now become inevitable?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation in the Middle East is extremely dangerous and that, obviously, the greatest possible advance would be to secure a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute. We are, of course, ready with our European partners to make a constructive approach to the matter but at the moment negotiations on the future of the West Bank are taking place. We must not undermine those negotiations.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the steps that she has taken in Iran leading to the virtual withdrawal of diplomatic representation, plus the obvious pressure on President Carter to move towards the use of force pose a serious danger to world peace in that area? Would it not also be helpful to recognise in some public statement the deep sense of resentment that underlay the original aspirations of the Iranian people in seeking to get rid of the Shah and establish greater control over their own affairs?

The Prime Minister: The future internal government of Iran is a matter for the Iranian people. Our quarrel with the Iranians is that they are holding—wholly contrary to international law—some 50 hostages. All our efforts are designed to secure the release of those hostages. The European ambassadors were recalled for consultations last week after which our ambassador Sir John Graham returned to Iran. The other ambassadors did not. Sir John Graham has now returned to Britain for further consultations.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister give her reaction to the highest postwar unemployment figure for April announced today? Will she now accept that North Sea oil revenues could be used to run the economy at a higher rate of activity than her Government are doing? Will the Prime Minister calculate the long-term consequences on our wealth-producing capacity of leaving school leavers idle in their present numbers?

The Prime Minister: One is always very worried about any increase in unemployment, and that is a view that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also expressed. Revenues from the North Sea go into the Exchequer in the ordinary way and are used to finance all Exchequer expenditure. Under the employment measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, 401,000 people are now assisted by those special measures compared with 248,000 12 months ago.

Mr. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the directors and work force of the Ford Motor Company on their record output, exports and profits? Does not that show what British industry can achieve when a company has a relatively strike-free period in which to work?

The Prime Minister: I am only too happy to join in congratulating a company which has shown considerable improvements both in profitability and output over the past year. I note with great satisfaction that it was due to considerably reduced strikes and interruptions in production. I hope that example will be emulated elsewhere.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 22 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Prime Minister agree that democracy in this country would be greatly helped if the cloak of secrecy surrounding the Government and Whitehall were to be lifted? Would she be prepared to take a small but significant step in that direction by making available to the public the names of the Cabinet committees and their member-

ship, without using the excuse that the collective responsibility of the Cabinet would somehow be prejudiced if she were to do so?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I must confess that I had not noticed an undue amount of secrecy lately.
As to the second part of his question, I have specified what Cabinet committees we have set up. I am not prepared to specify which members of Government serve on them. I believe that I said in reply to that question—and it is perfectly accurate—that the membership varies according to the matters under discussion.

Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many trade unionists object to the political one-day strike that trade union leaders aim to instigate on 14 May and that they are not least concerned because they are being threatened with withdrawal of their union cards and fines if they do not participate? Will not this puerile exercise by the trade unions cause a great deal of discomfort to the public while in no way causing my right hon. Friend to change the policies that she believes to be in the best interests of the country?

The Prime Minister: If that day of action takes place, it will have a totally political objective and nothing to do with a trade dispute. I hope that most trade union members will have no part in it at all.

Mr. James Callaghan: On this question of unemployment—and a large number of people who would like to be working are now being put out of jobs—since the Chief Secretary has said that there is no mechanistic or demonstrable link between the money supply and the reduction in the rate of inflation, why are the Government subjecting this country to such a savage rate of increase in unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to my right hon. Friend's excellent speech at the weekend—and I trust that he will read it in full—in which he said that the Government must adhere to their policies. He also said that the policy cannot be abandoned because of the price that


would have to be paid in output and employment in the short term to secure the prize of reducing inflation. Towards the end of his speech, he noted that the money supply policy was now beginning to work.

Mr. Callaghan: If unemployment is part of the Government's policy as a means of doing this, why are they reducing the level of benefits to those who are unemployed or sick?

The Prime Minister: The main factor in the Government's policy is to reduce the level of inflation, without which the level of unemployment in the long run cannot be reduced, as the right hon. Gentleman observed in one of his main speeches when he was at this Dispatch Box.
With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, unemployment benefit is being increased slightly below the level of increases in prices pending the introduction of taxation of short term benefits.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend seen newspaper reports that Walsall Labour councillors, who have imposed one of the largest rate increases in the country, now propose to politicise staff appointments to Walsall borough council? Does she agree that that is a most unfortunate trend in our political process? Will she ask the Department of the Environment to look into ways in which it could safeguard the political impartiality of local government officers?

The Prime Minister: I saw that report. If what the report contains is true—and it appears to be—the proposals of the Walsall Labour Party are wholly contrary to democracy. I am glad that NALGO has also condemned the proposals. I hope that the official Labour Party will also condemn them for what they are—a thorough disgrace.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Lady give serious consideration to the suggestion by the Danish Government that action against Iran by the European States should be postponed until elections have taken place in that country? Does she agree that would be a useful cooling-off period before matters escalate any further?

The Prime Minister: The United States has waited for six months and the hostages have not yet been released. The Foreign Ministers are meeting in Europe today. Doubtless the Danish Foreign Minister will be there and will put his viewpoint. I hope and believe that the Foreign Ministers will come out with a joint communiqué at the end of their meeting indicating full solidarity with the United States in diplomatic and economic measures.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the problem of Scottish teachers' salaries and agree to find the £1·5 million necessary to bring the salaries of Scottish primary school teachers up to those recommended for England and Wales by Clegg and, in so doing, ensure that we have industrial peace in the classrooms in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: The salaries of Scottish teachers are negotiated in their own negotiating body. I believe it is best to leave matters to that body.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the trade and diplomatic action that the Government are contemplating to help the United States' hostages in Iran, will the Government express the anger of this country at the failure of the United States—after 11 years of violence in Northern Ireland, where the Provisional IRA has slaughtered and mutilated thousands of men and women and young people—to stop money and guns from going to the Provisional IRA, and their continued refusal to send 3,000 Luger weapons to the police because they feel, wrongly, that they do not wish to take sides in this dispute?

The Prime Minister: We and, I believe, the vast majority of people in the United States, condemn any supply of money from the United States to the IRA for the continuance of its terrorist activities. When the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, was over there, he openly and courageously condemned such action.
Regarding the supply of pistols to the RUC, 3,000 were supplied and an application was put in for a further 3,000. A final decision has not yet been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (BENEFITS)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with the co-ordination betwen the Department of Employment and Social Services on the provision of benefit for strikers.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister accept that the logic of the Government's policy in denying to strikers the right to urgent needs payments—if the house is burnt down or is flooded—and in denying to strikers' families supplementary benefit in certain circumstances, means that trade unions must attempt to increase their strike funds? If the trade unions are to increase their strike funds, surely that must be as a result of increasing union dues, which will increase pressure for higher wages. Therefore, docs the right hon. Lady agree that the logic of her policy is to push up wages?

The Prime Minister: Members of trade unions have been paying substantial trade union dues for quite a time and the income and investment of trade unions is very substantial. It seems only right and proper that, if they call out their own people on strike, the trade unions should take some responsibility for the subsistence of their members during the strike period.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no one who takes part in the day of inaction on 14 May will receive any social security benefits? Will she further confirm that people who strike on that day will be losing pay equivalent to a full year's subscription to their union, and that those who oppose the strike on 14 May should go to work?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the vast majority will go to work on 14 May. I confirm that those who do strike will not be entitled, in any way, to social security benefits.

Mr. Allen McKay: Following the Prime Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when she said that unemployment would increase in the short term, may I ask how many years constitute a "short term"? Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her statement in which she spoke

of a slight reduction in the payment to unemployed persons—which will be 11·1 per cent.—while inflation is increasing at the rate of 20 per cent.? Is not 50 per cent. rather more than a slight reduction?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the increase in unemployment, the future will depend upon two things—first, the actual performance of British industry and, secondly, how much both the trade unions and employees demand in pay claims. If the employees take out too much in pay, the result will be increasing unemployment.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILLS

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, there are two Social Security Bills passing through Parliament at the same time. What makes that unique is that they are similar Bills covering the same areas for debate in many instances. I refer to the Social Security (No. 1) Bill and the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. [Laughter.] I do not know what Government Members find so funny. We are talking about benefits that affect millions of people in this country.
We know that it is impossible to debate exactly the same detailed subjects on both Bills. The problem is that they are both at a stage where amendments can be made, but the amendments are proving contradictory. The Social Security (No. 2) Bill amends the Social Security (No. 1) Bill, which has not yet passed through the House of Lords and is still in Committee. Therefore, debate may be a travesty of parliamentary procedure.
I have looked at pages 491 to 493 of "Erskine May", and they do not appear to cover this unique circumstance. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this matter because we are talking about amendments to a Bill that affects the disabled, the sick and pensioners. As was pointed out yesterday by Lord Elwyn-Jones in another place, the Government are in a shambles over both Social Security Bills.
I believe that this is an important constitutional issue, and one that I have not encountered in the time that I have been in Parliament. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) did me the courtesy of giving me notice, in detail, this morning of his point of order and, therefore, I have had an opportunity to consider the matter and to study other pages of "Erskine May".
It is true that there are two Bills passing through the House which interrelate, although they are not of identical substance. Had they been, the second Bill could not have proceeded. In such circumstances, it is not a matter on which I can rule. It is for the House to do its best to ensure that, when the second Bill reaches its final stage, it does not conflict in detail with the first Bill. But that is not a duty that falls upon the Chair. It is a duty for the House. There is no way in which I can intervene.

Mr. Orme: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Does it not point to the fact that until the Social Security (No. 1) Bill has been dealt with by Parliament we should not proceed with the Social Security (No. 2) Bill? It would be a travesty of Parliament to do so. There was an amendment discussed yesterday in another place which related directly to the Social Security (No. 2) Bill.
I cannot refer in any detail to Committee proceedings, but I feel that the Government have a responsibility, in the interests of Parliament, to stop procedure on the second Bill until the first Bill has passed through Parliament.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely understand your ruling on the matter, but it might have been relevant if the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) had pointed out that the passage of "Erskine May" to which he drew attention came under the general heading "Introduction and First Reading" in the Commons. If there had been any question about whether the two Bills were in some way inconsistent and could not be proceeded with, the right hon. Gentleman would have been more than a fortnight late in raising the matter. The Bill is now in Committee. It appears that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, means that the Committee is perfectly in order to proceed with it.

WALSALL LABOUR PARTY

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time reference was made to the Walsall area. The Prime Minister considered it appropriate to launch an attack on the Walsall Labour movement—whose members, incidentally, do not need any lectures from the right hon. Lady or any of her colleagues. They have a difficult enough time in carrying out their duties, bearing in mind the severe Government cuts, as a result of which the housing programme has come virtually to a halt.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not catch my eye after the Prime Minister had referred to his constituency, but there were many hon. Members standing up and I did not see him. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order, I shall let him score his point and register his remark by what he has said already.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I did not catch your eye, although, obviously, I tried to do so. Is it not the custom in the House that an hon. Member can refute the sort of smear allegations that were made by the Prime Minister against the constituency that he represents?

Mr. Speaker: It is one of the difficulties of life that we cannot always contradict remarks. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I would say to any other hon. Member, that if an hon. Member's constituency is mentioned I try, as a rule, to call that hon. Member. I wish that I had called the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has done better by getting in later.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the three Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Apple and Pear Development Council Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

ABORTION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law on abortion so as to enable registered medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies which have lasted for less than twenty-four weeks.
I apologise to the House for bringing before it yet again an issue which many people may feel has been well aired. I remind hon. Members that we have spent a great deal of time in this Session discussing a matter that concerns many people in this country, and have failed to change one section, one comma or one full stop of the Abortion Act 1967. Yet, when the House debated the subject, it was quite clear that many hon. Members on both sides felt that there was room for change in the 1967 Act. Because of the almost obstinate view of people on both sides of the argument, that they will not give way or compromise at all, I feel that no progress has been made in achieving any sort of reasonable compromise to deal with the problems that many of us feel should be tackled.
I do not believe that a Ten-Minute Bill of this kind will fundamentally alter the reasons why women are forced to have abortions, and I am convinced that as a society we must do something about the stigmas that are attached to one-parent families and to those who feel that it is impossible to cope with having a child and who are driven into the hands of the abortionists. I also believe that the contraceptive services which we offer leave a great deal to be desired. But the fact that there is now one abortion every four minutes in this country must surely convince right hon. and hon. Members that the time has come to look again at the way in which our legislation is working and to challenge the sort of suppositions upon which it has been based.
Whether or not this Bill is given the opportunity of being debated further, I am sure that many hon. Members will continue to have sincerely held views either for or against abortion. However, I am certain that there cannot be many hon. Members whose views have changed since we took a vote only a few weeks ago on whether the length of pregnancy at which an abortion can take place

should be reduced. That is the matter to which I want hon. Members to address their minds. I am certain that there is a need to reduce the time at which an abortion can take place from the present 28-week limit. Personally, I should like to see it lower than 24 weeks, and I voted accordingly. However, when the Question was put to the House, the vote was lost by 298 to 120, a majority of 178. When a further vote was taken on the 24-week limit, it was agreed to by 275 to 172, thus demonstrating that a clear majority of the House was in favour of a reduction from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. That is why I believe that we must introduce a series of one-clause Bills in order to amend the legislation, and I make it quite clear to those who hold views that are the opposite of my own that this is not the end of the argument.
Indeed, the Minister himself accepted that if further evidence is brought forward it may be necessary to look at a time limit lower than 24 weeks. Therefore, there can never be an end to this argument, and my Bill will not stop hon. Members from introducing further amendments and further Bills. I believe that there is room for this Bill, which the majority of hon. Members supported just a few weeks ago. In evidence, I refer hon. Members to the Lane committee, which said:
Numerous organisations and individuals have recommended an upper limit on the period of gestation at which abortion may lawfully take place. Their principal reasons for so doing may be summarised as follows:—

(1) To encourage early application for, and performance of, abortion and thus to avoid or minimise the risks of the operation, which increase substantially after the first trimester of pregnancy.
(2) To spare the patient and the medical and nursing staff the revulsion and distress occasioned by later abortions, such reactions becoming progressively more severe as the fetus assumes an increasingly human form and movements may be seen.
(3) To avoid the destruction of a well-developed fetus and particularly one which might survive termination of pregnancy."

Mrs. Justice Lane had this to say in her recommendations:
Informed opinion is, and the Committee agrees, that a maximum gestational age of twenty-eight weeks for abortion is too high, having regard to modern methods of sustaining prematurely-born infants. Viability must be a question of fact in each case but, while it may be theoretically possible for a fetus to


survive at twenty-four weeks' gestation, in practice there is little hope of survival at a gestational age of less than twenty-six weeks. An upper limit of twenty-four weeks' gestation for abortion should afford protection for any fetus with a real chance of survival independently of its mother. Further research may justify a reduction of this period".
Indeed, that is one of the reasons why in the amendment, which he accepted and supported, the Minister talked in terms of exceptions being made and the possibility of further reductions in the future. The committee recommended
that the Abortion Act should be amended to authorise abortion up to the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy and not thereafter".
A leader in The Times, commenting on that, said:
There is still room for medical argument about whether it is necessary to stipulate 20 weeks to secure that objective, or whether 22 or 24 weeks would do; but there should be little disagreement about the objective itself.
The Guardian newspaper said of abortions:
Two out of every 1,000 are carried out on women who have been pregnant for over 24 weeks. About 200 in a year. But both Mrs. Justice Lane's Committee, which spent three years reviewing our abortion procedures, and the World Health Organisation have recommended a limit of 24 weeks.
In opening, I said that a number of right hon. and hon. Members had tried to amend the legislation since my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) introduced the 1967 Act. I must say that I opposed his views then within the political party of which I am a member, and I have consistently taken that view. However, I am pleased that today both he and I are sponsors of this Bill, which demonstrates that there is support on both sides of the argument for the change.
Since 1967, many attempts have been made to change the legislation. On 15 July 1969, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), now Leader of the House, failed to get a First Reading for his Bill by 210 votes to 199. The Abortion Law (Reform) Bill in the 1969–70 Session, in the name of the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), was talked out on Second Reading. Numerous other attempts were made, but I shall not go into them as my time is running out.
I believe that there is a need for this change. I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill, which seeks

to amend the law on abortion so as to enable registered medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies which have lasted for less than twenty-four weeks.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) wishes to oppose the motion.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is no prerogative of moral concern on this issue. There are those such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edgehill (Mr. Alton) whose moral principles make them oppose abortion in all circumstances. There are many whose moral principles make them believe that it is for a woman to choose whether she wants to have an abortion. I have never taken either of those extreme views, nor did the House in 1967. It came to a balance of the moral concerns, between concern for the life and health of the mother and the life of the foetus. We thought then that we had achieved an appropriate balance.
The arguments that I advance today are addressed not to those who are confirmed in their view on either extreme but rather to those in the middle who accepted that balance but who may consider that, in the light of events since then, it is time to change. To those who argue that perhaps we ought to do so in order to give finality to the argument, I must point out that the hon. Member for Edge Hill has already destroyed that argument by indicating that his Bill would not be the last enactment upon the subject, and that those who are opposed to abortion would continue to introduce Bills in the future.
I suggest that those hon. Members who want finality vote strongly against the Bill today so that the House can show to the country that the balance which was achieved in 1967 was the right one and ought to continue.
I address most of my arguments to the point that has been made in favour of the Bill, namely, that, because it is now possible to save a foetus at a much earlier period than it was in 1967, we ought to reduce the top limit in order to avoid the circumstances in which, because of an abortion, a child may come into the world who was capable of living but who was then put to death. I want to make it as plain as I can that that has never been the law. It will not be the law if we pass the Bill. Indeed, there has never


been an occasion when it has been permissible for a viable foetus that is capable of living to come into the world and for it then legitimately to be put to death.
It would be an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, and it would be an offence of murder if it were done deliberately. It would be an offence of manslaughter if the consultant or doctor who brought that child into the world were to neglect it, and thereby imperil its life. For that reason, since 1975 the regulations for carrying out abortions have insisted that whenever an abortion takes place after 20 weeks gestation it should take place in circumstances where there is the machinery to resuscitate the foetus if it is capable of living.
We are not discussing the question—so emotively put in much of the propaganda—whether foetuses will be put to death after they have been born. If a foetus is capable of living, it must continue to live. The argument about a 28-week limit is misconceived. No limit is laid down in the Abortion Act 1967. The limit of 28 weeks is laid down in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. It is stated there that it is an offence
to kill a child capable of being born alive.
If an abortion takes place after 28 weeks of pregnancy the presumption is against the accused, that the child would have been borne alive, and the accused has to refute that presumption. That has always been a rebuttable presumption, and from 1965 onwards it was always possible for legitimate abortion to be carried out after 28 weeks, which was not an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
The difference between the Corrie Bill—if I may so call it—and this Bill is that that arguable presumption was removed. Any abortion carried out after 24 or 28 weeks would have been an offence. If people argue about whether that offence is desirable, they should then consider the circumstances. At present,

very few abortions take place after 24 weeks. Only 183 such abortions took place in 1977, and of those the majority were dictated by the circumstances of the life or health of the foetus or of the life or health of the mother. Some people now say that we should shift the moral balance so that the time limit is held at 24 weeks or less. Incidentally, this Bill does not say that the limit should be 24 weeks or less. It says that the limit should be less than 24 weeks, which means 23 weeks, and when the two weeks that consultants allow as a buffer period are taken off, the limit is 21 weeks. If we say that the balance must be held at 21 weeks we are shifting the balance of moral concern from the life and the health of the mother, and the life and health of the other children, towards the foetus.
Given the circumstances that I have indicated, I do not believe that a foetus that is capable of being born alive will ever be destroyed, and that that is the right balance to hold. It means that we would stop the abortion of a foetus that would be born dead, and we would do so merely on the grounds of the moral concern of some people against the interest of the health and life of the mother and other children and towards the foetus. I do not believe that that is a desirable thesis.
We should now say to the country as a whole, and to all those who campaigned against the 1967 Bill, that we struck the right balance in 1967. It is the right balance for us now and we should hold to it in the future, and we should tell our constituents that. Let us now vote against the Bill in order to make that plain.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and negatived.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 3

RIGHT OF WORKERS TO DEMAND A BALLOT BEFORE INDUSTRIA ACTION IS TAKEN

5
'(1) Whenever action is contemplated by a trade union in furtherance of a trade dispute, any member of that union whose participation in such action may be required under the rules of the union, or because of that employee's membership of the union, or because of his employment by an employer with whom the dispute is contemplated, may give notice in writing to the committee of management or other governing body of the union that he wishes a ballot to be held on the question whether such action should be undertaken by the union.


10
(2) If 15 per cent. of the total membership of a union whose participation in action in furtherance of a trade dispute may be required under the rules of the union, or 500 such members, whichever is the lesser number, give the notice specified in subsection (1) before the commencement of such action, the committee of management or other governing body of the union shall give directions for a ballot to be held on the question specified in the said subsection.


15
(3) The persons entitled to vote in a ballot under this section shall be all those members of a union whose participation in the action contemplated by the union may be required under the rules of the union and who are members of that union as set out in the latest return to the Certification Officer.


20
(4) A ballot under this section shall be so conducted, in the employer's time, as to secure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, all those entitled to vote have an opportunity of voting, and of doing so in secret.


25
(5) In the event of a ballot being held in accordance with the provisions of this section, the provisions of section 13 (Acts in contemplation of furtherance of trade disputes) of the 1974 Act shall not apply in respect of any act done in furtherance of the trade dispute concerned by any person or by or on behalf of the trade union concerned—



(a) between the day following the receipt by the committee of management or other governing body of the union of the number of notices specified in subsection (2) and the day following the publication of the result of the said ballot; and,


30
(b) if more than 50 per cent. of those voting in the said ballot voted against the action contemplated by the union, at any time after the publication of the result of the said ballot.



(6) In the event of there not being a majority for industrial action, it shall not be open to any member of the union to request a further ballot under the provisions of this section for a period of 28 days following the publication of the result of the ballot.


35
(7) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any ballot which may be held during the course of industrial action or in the event of any ballot being held by the executive of the union in contemplation of such union action.


40
(8) In this section references to a trade union include references to a branch or section of a trade union, and references to the committee of management or other governing body include references to a branch or section committee.'.—(Mr. John Browne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Browne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following:

Amendment (a) to the new clause, in line 6, after 'union', insert:
'or, in confidence, to his employer, the receipt of such notices to be vouched by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service or other similar body'.

New clause 2—Secret ballot to be held before commencement of trade dispute:
'(1) It shall not be lawful for any trade union to call a strike or any other form of industrial dispute prior to the holding of a secret ballot of its members in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) The ballot shall be held on a working day within the next seven working days following the decision by the trade unions to call a strike or other form of industrial action, and shall be conducted by the trade unions concerned.
(3) A simple majority of those voting shall be required to validate the decision to strike or hold other forms of industrial action.


(4) In the event of a strike or other industrial action being called without the obtaining of such a majority, or in the event of the other provisions of this section being disregarded by the trade union concerned, section 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 shall not have effect for the purpose of any action in tort which may be taken.'.

New clause 4—Provision of ballots in relation to industrial disputes:
'1. (a) 15 per cent. or 500 employees (whichever is the less) at any particular place of work shall be entitled to serve a notice of intent in writing on their trade union requesting that a ballot should be held for the purpose of obtaining a decision or ascertaining the views of employees as to the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action.
(b) The ballot shall fall within the purposes mentioned in section 1, subsection 3 below, and the certification officer shall cause payments to be made towards expenditure incurred by the trade union in respect of such a ballot.
(c) Any such ballot shall be held within a period of time, after the receipt by the trade union of notice of intent in writing, not exceeding 14 days.
(d) Any strike or other industrial action called or pursued in defiance of or before the result of such a ballot shall not fall within the terms of sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.'.

New clause 5—Right of trades union members to requisition secret ballots:
'(1) Notwithstanding any provision of its rules it shall be the duty of a trade union, on the requisition of such number of members as is hereinafter specified to conduct or cause to be conducted a ballot of its members for the purpose of seeking their opinions on any of the matters set out below, that is to say—

(a) the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action;
(b) a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer in accordance with the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964;
(c) the matters referred to in section 1, subsection 3(b) to (3)(d).

(2) The number of members necessary for a requisition under the foregoing subsection shall be—

(a) in the case of the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action under subsection 1(a) above, one twentieth of the members involved in such strike or industrial action;
(b) in the case of the purposes referred to in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) above one-twentieth of the members of the trade union.

(3) The requisition must state the questions which are to be the subject of the ballot, and must be signed by the requisitionists and be deposited at the registered office of the trade union and may consist of several documents in like form each signed by one or more requisitionists.

(4) On receipt of such a requisition, and pending the result of the required ballot, a trade union shall not take any action to give effect to any proposal or proposals which is or are the subject of the ballot.
(5) If the trade union does not within twenty-one days from the date of deposit of the requisition proceed duly to conduct a ballot or cause it to be conducted, the requisitionists, or any of them duly nominated as proxies for this purpose, may themselves conduct a ballot or cause it to be conducted, but any ballot so conducted shall not be held after the expiration of three months from the said date.
(6) A ballot so conducted or caused to be conducted shall in all cases be so conducted as to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those voting may do so in secret.
(7) It shall be the duty of any official of a trade union to make available to the requisitionists, or to any proxy duly nominated under subsection (5) above, such documents, records and facilities as are necessary for the proper conduct of the ballot.
(8) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the requisitionists by reason of the failure of the trade union to conduct a ballot or cause it to be conducted shall be repaid to the requisitionists by the trade union. The certification officer shall have the power to make payments in respect of such expenditure as if it were expenditure incurred on a ballot to which section 1 applies.
(9) the certification officer may, on application by a number of members of a trade union hereinafter specified, make payments in respect of expenditure likely to be reasonably incurred in preparing the requisition in accordance with subsections (1) to (5).
(10) The number of members necessary for an application under the foregoing subsection shall be—

(a) in the case of the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action under subsection 1(a) above, one per cent. of the members involved in such strike or industrial action or 50 whichever is the less;
(b) in the case of the purposes referred to in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) above one per cent. of the total membership of the trade union in question or 500 whichever is the less;

(11) The certification officer may refuse to make the payments referred to in subsections (8) and (9) above if members of trades unions seeking the ballot or requisition in question are acting unreasonably, vexatiously or frivolously.
(12) A trade union shall not be bound under this section to circulate any statement if, on the application either of the trade union or any other person who claims to be aggrieved, the court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter and the courts may order the trade union's cost on an application under this section to be paid in whole or in part by the requisitionists notwithstanding that they are not parties to the application.".

New Clause 6—Right of workers to demand a ballot before or during industrial action:
'(1) Whenever action disruptive or likely to be disruptive to full production of an employing organisation in furtherance of a trade dispute is either contemplated by a trade union or has begun but in case of pay negotiations, not before a definitive final offer in writing has been made by the employing organisation and acknowledged in writing by the union, but not within 28 days after publication of the result of a previous ballot under this Act any member of that union whose participation in such action may be required who is employed by the employing organisation may give signed notice in writing either to the committee of management of the union or in confidence to the employing organisation, the receipt of which notices to be vouched by ACAS or other similar body that he wishes a secret ballot to be held on the question of whether such action should be taken by the union.
(2) If 15 per cent. of the persons employed by the employing organisation who are members of a union whose participation in action in furtherance of a trade dispute may be required, or 500 of such members whichever is the lesser number, give the notice specified in subsection (1) and such notice is certified by ACAS as correct, before the commencement of such action, the committee of management  directions for a secret ballot to be held on the question specified in the said subsection (1) before the beginning of any disruptive action. If such notice is received and certified by ACAS after the commencement of such action or a previous ballot under this Act the committee of management of the union shall give directions for the secret ballot to be held within fourteen days of the receipt of such notice and such action is to be immediately suspended pending the outcome of the ballot.
(3) The persons entitled to vote in a ballot under this section shall be all those members of a union whose participation in the action whether contemplated or begun may be required and who are employed by the employing organisation and are members of the union as set out in the latest return to the Certification Officer.
(4) A ballot under this section shall be conducted whenever practical in the employing organisation's time so as to secure that so far as is reasonably possible all those entitled to vote have an opportunity of voting and of doing so in secret. The question to be asked in the ballot is to be decided by the committee of management of the union and the employing organisation. In case of dispute, the question to be decided by an independent body. If the specific unions fail to organise such a ballot within 14 days of receipt of notices as specified in subsection (2) the employing organisation may arrange the ballot with the help if required of ACAS, the Electoral Reform Society or similar body.
(5) In the event of a ballot being held or requested in accordance with this section the provisions of sections 13 (Acts in contemplation of furtherance of trade disputes) of the 1974 Act shall not apply in respect of any act

done in furtherance of the trade dispute concerned by any person or by or on behalf of the trade union concerned:

(a) from the day following the receipt by the committee of management and/or employing organisation of the number of notices specified in subsection (2) until the day following the publication of the result of the said ballot; and
(b) if in any employing organisation, more than 50 per cent. of those eligible voting in the said ballot voted against the action contemplated or undertaken by the union at any time after the publication of the result of the said ballot.

(6) In this section reference to a union includes a branch or section or group of members of a trade union and references to the committee of management includes a governing body, branch, district or executive Committee of a union or representatives or associations or similar bodies acting on behalf of non union or staff employees.
(7) In this section reference to an employing organisation includes a state, public or privately owned company or corporation whether incorporated or not or operating division or subsidiary thereof.'.

Mr. Browne: It is well known that Britain is at a crossroads between becoming either a developed technological country or an underdeveloped industrial country. To attain the former goal and a justified high standard of living, we must achieve a technological revolution. To achieve that we must, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, restore sanity to our industrial relations.
Speaking personally, I am not anti-trade unions, but I share the views of many of my fellow countrymen, including many rank and file trade union members, that in an alarming number of instances certain trade union leaders appear to have abused the great power vested in them by their rank and file membership. Furthermore, that abuse has not been restricted to conditions of work or pay, but it has, on occasions, been extended to the very politics of our nation and, as such, has abused our basic form of democratic government.
Sadly, I believe that those union leaders have been allowed and encouraged to abuse their power by weak national leadership. I believe that the true blame for chaotic industrial relations, demoralised managements, low productivity, high unemployment and the fact that we now have one of the worst paid work forces in the developed world lies in this House. This is where the blame for weak leadership must lie, and this is


where the answers must be found. So many trade union leaders profess democracy but few practise it. Many practise a form of either partial or complete dictatorship—a dictatorship disguised under a veil of democracy. Today, a man must be all but a hero to lead a vote, by show of hands, against his union leader's recommendations at the average mass meeting of his union.
The result of the last general election convinced me that the majority of our fellow countrymen and, more importantly on this issue, vast numbers of trade union rank and file expect the present Government to induce the trade unions to accept democracy when they interfere with their members' basic right to work where jobs exist. To allow for that, I believe that trade union members on the shop floor should be offered the basic democratic right to a secret ballot on matters concerning industrial action and that a minority should be able to trigger such a secret ballot.
I emphasise that such a mandatory right of the worker is definitely not the same as a mandatory ballot. I envisage a mandatory right for the shop floor worker, which he is free to use—or not—on a voluntary basis. I have therefore tabled two new clauses to this vital Bill, new clauses 3 and 6. I feel that they should be read in conjunction with each other. The second new clause is a more comprehensive version of the first and overcomes many of the potential problems raised by a secret ballot.
The purpose of introducing the clauses is to stimulate debate in the House and to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to accept the principle of a secret ballot triggered by a minority of union members. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to introduce a professionally drafted clause in another place or make a firm commitment to the House to introduce the secret ballot in separate legislation in this Parliament.
The aim of the clause is to reintroduce democracy for workers within their unions regarding industrial action, both in furtherance of a trade dispute and in furtherance of political aims, by allowing members to trigger a democratic secret ballot of their fellow workers. The clauses do not seek to impose a mandatory ballot on the unions from

outside. They merely allow for a secret ballot internally triggered.
The main points of the clauses are as follows. Subsection (1) allows a member of a trade union to ask his union, even in confidence, for a secret ballot to be held on whether industrial action, which he is being asked to undertake, should start or continue. In pay negotiations, such a request may not be made before a final pay offer has been received in writing by the union. That is the same provision as that contained in section 173(c) of the United States Labour Code, which allows the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to submit the employer's last offer of a settlement to the employees for approval by secret ballot. Under the subsection, a request for a ballot may not be made within 28 days of a previous ballot.
Subsection (2) defines the minority that is required for a secret ballot trigger—that is, the minority that is required under the clause before any industrial action is suspended, if it has begun, pending the ballot.
Subsection (3) specifies who can vote in a ballot. Subsection (4) describes the conduct of a ballot—namely, to be held in secret in employers' time and the ballot question to be decided by union and employer together or, if disputed, by an independent body. It provides for the company to run a ballot should the union fail to do so.
Subsection (5) describes the sanctions to be imposed should a union fail in its obligations. The sanctions are the removal of section 13 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 immunities, and are identical to the sanctions that are already contained in the Bill for secondary picketing.
Subsection (6) defines unions and includes groups of members of a trade union. It thereby encompasses unofficial actions.
Subsection (7) defines employers' organisations, including operating divisions. It therefore allows local union ballots upon national union actions.
I must emphasise that the new clauses are not professionally drafted and seek only to suggest to my right hon. Friend how some of the main problems in the complex subject of secret ballots may be overcome. In other words, the details


as drafted are only suggestions and are in no way sacrosanct.
It is the principle of secret ballots about which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel so strongly. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members in the Liberal Party also have strong views. I remind my right hon. Friend that the sentiments set out in the new clauses have been approved by the Conservative trade union national conference on no fewer than three occasions, on the last by a vote of 500 to three.
My right hon. Friend may argue that the ideas contained within the clauses do not fit within the parametres of the Bill. If he does, I shall dispute that. The idea is a voluntary secret ballot. The only imposition is upon trade union leaders to recognise democracy, and only if and when a minority of their members request it. As I have said, the sanctions, including the removal of section 13 TULRA immunities, are entirely consistent with the Bill's present provisions for sanctions under secondary picketing. In my view, the proposal is a mere mouse, a first small step towards a mandatory secret ballot, which Conservative Members and Conservative voters expect of the Government. I submit that my proposal meets the step-by-step criteria of my right hon. Friend.
Finally, my right hon. Friend may argue that there has been no consultation and that the Robens proposal will be a good first step. My reply will be that there have been two months in which to consult on the specific proposal in detail and years—yes, years—in which to consult on the idea of secret ballots.

Mr. Richard Needham: Mr. Richard Needham (Chippenham) rose—

Mr. Browne: As for the Robens amendment, I believe that it will increase rather than decrease the power of trade union leaders. A trade union leader who is a wrecker is far more dangerous to the country than 100 political wreckers on the shop floor. Furthermore, the Robens amendment will leave the poor employer still poorer.

Mr. Stan Crowther: The hon. Gentleman has spoken a good deal about democracy. Does he agree that the ultimate in democracy is allowing people to make up their own minds, on

the basis of a democratic vote within their union, what the rules should be? Is he not aware that many unions already have provisions in their rules for secret ballots and that the rules are determined by the union members? Surely, that is what real democracy is about. Surely, it is not about the imposition of rules on trade unions from this place.

Mr. Browne: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Like many things that are said about union democracy, what the hon. Gentleman says sounds so good and so abundantly democratic. However, the actual workings are not nearly so convincing. If the hon. Gentleman was correct, there would be no objection to my proposal. I am merely saying that in the unions where he is not correct, members should be free, especially as we are talking about their means of earning their livelihood, to say whether they agree with one man in a union of 2 million members. Without some form of ballot, how can that one man possibly know whether the union should instruct its members to strike?

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of subsection (8) of new clause 3? It is there stated that
references to a trade union include references to a branch or section of a trade union".
Does that mean that a branch of a trade union could organise a ballot and take industrial action on its own regardless of the wishes of the rest of the union?

Mr. Browne: No, it does not. The purpose of the subsection is to try to include unofficial action, which may not be action resulting from the policy of the union leader.

Mr. Needham: rose—

Mr. Browne: In closing, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Needham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is obliged to give way when he has been called to speak. It is a matter for the hon. Member who is speaking.

Mr. Browne: I remind the House that it is the principle of the secret ballot about which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel so strongly. We do not hold as sacrosanct the provisions of these


unprofessionally drafted clauses; they are merely suggestions. The idea is for a voluntary secret ballot triggered from the shop floor. It is not an imposed or mandatory secret ballot. It is just a first step—a very important first step—that could provide invaluable experience for the future—experience that is now so sadly lacking—upon which to base subsequent legislation for a mandatory secret ballot. I do not believe that this idea will provide a panacea for stopping strikes. At best, it will prevent some strikes and may shorten others.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I have supported his Bill as Government policy and that I have kept him informed of my views and my movements. I therefore hope that when he has listened to the debate he will meet the strong feelings on this issue by giving the House a firm commitment to introduce either relevant Government-drafted changes to the Bill in another place or separate legislation later in this Parliament. I believe that the trade union rank and file and the majority of our fellow countrymen expect such a commitment.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on the clear and pleasant diction with which he read his speech. His vowels were pure and his consonants sharply articulated, but I fear that I cannot congratulate him on the content of his speech, whoever may have been its author or authors. It shows a great deal of evidence of theoretical—

Mr. John Browne: —Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mikardo: I have not yet come to the end of my first sentence. The hon. Member for Winchester was so worried about his diction that he did not want to give way even to one of his hon. Friends. Now he wants me to give way before I have finished my first sentence. May I ask him to wait another minute or so? I am quite ready to see him stick his neck out and get it wet.
I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the content of his speech. I intend no disrespect to him, but his speech bears the hallmark of someone who has come to this subject from a theoretical rather than from a practical standpoint.
I do not propose to speak at length because I think that we should not spend a long time on this debate. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that we have before us in the days remaining on Report debates on several subjects of major importance on which there is room for and there is a clear difference of view, both sides of which can be fairly argued. The House should spend its time on the serious issues in the Bill. I am sure the Secretary of State will not wish to waste a lot of time on the clause, and I hope the debate on it will be brought to an end fairly quickly.

Mr. Browne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my speech was drafted entirely by me without any outside interference. I am amazed that he should consider a secret ballot as being immaterial. To me and many of the people I meet in daily life, see on television or consult, it is of overriding importance.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman confess that he wrote the speech himself. I tried hard to think well of him and I was hoping that my good opinion of him could be sustained by his ascribing the authorship of that garrulous nonsense elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman does not know what goes on in industry. He said that it took a lot of courage for one man to get up at an open meeting where there is a show of hands ballot and oppose the union's recommendation. It happens every day of the week. All of us on the Opposition Benches have been present on many occasions when that has happened. The hon. Gentleman cannot read his newspapers very thoroughly, because in the past few weeks there have been some highly publicised mass meetings where workers have turned down the recommendations, either of the union executive or of the shop stewards. Mr. Robinson can provide some evidence of that, can he not?
Tory Members do not know what goes on in the real world. The hon. Member for Winchester spoke as though secret ballots were new in the trade union movement. They go on all the time in many unions. Nor should he assume that a secret ballot will always be a ballot against the holding of a strike. That is the thought behind the clause. The


hon. Gentleman did not say that, but we know that is what is behind it. We might ask the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who lost the highest position in Government because of a strike carried out as the result of a secret ballot in the National Union of Mine-workers. No strike ever takes place in that union without a secret ballot, and that is true of many other unions.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to follow the practice of the legislature of the United States of America in this regard. He manifestly is unaware that, in spite of all the legislation in the United States, for many years the number of days lost in strikes per million workers in the United States has always been many times as high—sometimes five or six times as high—as the number of days per million workers lost in strikes in this country. America is nearly the world champion in the number of days lost in strikes per million workers. Therefore, I see no basis for adjuring the House to copy the example of the United States.
Strikes nearly always happen as the result of a lot of straws being put one by one on a camel's back. There is always the final straw. Sometimes people who are investigating strikes get the analysis wrong because they see only the final straw and do not look hard enough at what went before. The Donovan Commission brought out this important factor in its great report. When something happens as a final straw people do not take a ballot. The most common cause of walk-outs in industry is a shop steward being sacked or disciplined—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Like "Robbo."

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Lady should not interrupt. She should stick to arguments about the period of 20 weeks. She discredited herself by misleading her constituents in that regard, and I am not disposed to take much notice of her now.
The most common cause of an immediate walk-out at a work place is when a couple of chaps are trying to organise for a trade union in an unorganised place and the employer gets to hear about it and fires them, with the result that the other chaps either walk out or down tools and sit down.
That will happen whatever sort of legislation we have. If those who speak and act for their fellow workers are discriminated against, those fellow workers will not stand for it. There are no circumstances in which anyone will take a ballot in such a case—because a ballot takes time. Anyway, if the employer is refusing his employees the right to join a trade union, who will organise the ballot?
Suppose the workers do not walk out but down tools and sit down, which often happens. Often the employer locks them out. Who will he take a ballot of in order to decide on a lock-out? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if one man can unilaterally decide on a lock-out, where are the pleas of the hon. Member for Winchester for democracy? A lock-out can affect the livelihoods of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of workers. There is no ballot and no consultation with anyone. That is how it often works out.
I appeal to my hon. Friends who wish to speak in the debate not to take too long, because we should try to get rid of this rubbish in an hour or two and get on to the meat of the Bill.
My final point is that if there is to be a ballot to start a strike trade union leaders will have no authority to end it without a ballot. The hon. Member for Winchester says that one trade union leader ought not to have the right, on his own say-so, to call a strike and that it ought to be left to the chaps. Suppose they have a ballot and call a strike. Does the hon. Member suggest that one trade union leader, on his own say-so, should have the right to tell them that, whether they like it or not, they must go back to work?
If there is a ballot before a strike, there must be a ballot to end it and if the hon. Member studies the American experience he will find many examples where there has been great difficulty in getting the chaps back to work in the United States because of the legislation that the hon. Gentleman quoted and applauded.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his general argument would be a great deal stronger but for the fact that so many trade unionists are locked into unions by closed shops and cannot exercise the ultimate discipline on their trade


union leaders of saying "I do not like the way that you are running the union. I shall leave it and either not be a trade unionist or join another trade union"?

Mr. Mikardo: I go along with some of the thought behind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, the existence of the closed shop affects many aspects of industrial relations. I have been a trade unionist all my working life—I was on the executive committee of a trade union for more than 30 years and was its president for five years—and I have never been a great devotee of the closed shop. I am in favour of closed shops, because I am in favour of workers joining their trade unions, but I never sought to get an employer to help me create a closed shop. I always wanted to do it myself. I go along with the hon. Gentleman that far, but the issue before us is not affected by the existence of the closed shop.
Whether a shop is closed or not, if there is a ballot to start a strike there must be a ballot to end it. That is a fact that the hon. Member for Winchester has never faced.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has just set out the original non sequitur. If people do not want to go on strike, but stay at work, they are in grave danger of losing their union cards and their employment. If there has been a ballot to go on strike and union representatives recommend a return to work without a ballot, those who are not in favour of returning to work will not do so, but they will not lose their union cards or their employment.

Mr. Mikardo: I have never in my life seen so many pheasants flying straight into the guns. Conservative Members really do ask for trouble. What the hon. Gentleman has said is so manifest nonsense that it does not need even an argument against it. If it is dictatorial to compel people to come out, it is dictatorial to compel them to go back. There must be the same mechanisms for both.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mikardo: No; I have finished. In fact, I finished two minutes ago and I want this silly debate to come to an end.

I appeal to the Secretary of State to bring it to an end as soon as he decently can.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I wish to speak in support of new clause 3, and of new clause 2 in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends.
I should like first to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary for their handling of the Bill. My right hon. Friend set the tone for the debate when he said last week:
Change is urgently necessary to give people more control over their own lives—to think and act for themselves free from some of the pressures to which they have been subjected for so long."—[Official Report, 17 April 1980; Vol. 982, c, 1503.]
That is a view that Conservative Members unanimously endorse.
I am sorry that, despite the growth of informed opinion in the Conservative Party and the country, the Bill makes no real or sufficient provision for a secret ballot to be held by the work force before a dispute can commence. To permit the omission of such a provision would seem to fly in the face of our national history and the growth of working and middle-class political consciousness in the nineteenth century and to date.
Since 1832, political activity in pursuit of democracy has been the goal of working class and trade union leadership. Indeed, the People's Charter published in London in May 1838 contained six points, which were regarded as revolutionary by contemporaries but which we consider to be part of the political complexion of a Western liberal democracy.
The Chartists demanded annual Parliaments, universal male suffrage, no property qualification for Members of Parliament, the payment of Members, equal electoral districts and the ballot—the secret ballot.
Five of the six objectives have been achieved and the secret ballot in which an elector can demonstrate his or her preference for a political party, or not to vote at all, is recognised as important. For hon. Members to deny the application of the democratic processes to any adult Briton would be considered unthinkable, yet the right of the man or woman on the shop floor to participate in the decision-making process in connection with a proposal to strike or to


take another form of industrial action is not enshrined in law and will not be unless the Bill is changed.
I cannot rid myself of the knowledge gained in Dartford in the general election that many thousands of blue-collar workers and their families voted Conservative for the first time in greater numbers than ever before because they wanted a radical change in the mechanisms currently obtaining on the shop floor. I cannot permit, in terms of legislation, the drawing of conclusions in opposition which are denied in government.
This view is supported by Sir Leonard Neal who wrote to the The Times on Monday 31 March and said
My second doubt about the Bill concerns its failure to give rank-and-file membership the right to demand a ballot "…
and
There is much evidence of strike-weariness in this country—witness recent events at Ford's of Eastleigh, Cowley, Leyland, private steel, BSC itself, etc.—and of the rank-and-file membership being dragooned into striking despite their obvious inclinations to the contrary, all of which strongly underlines the need for a measure of this sort.
In his final paragraph, Sir Leonard says:
In dealing with all these undoubtedly difficult matters, we need to bear in mind that although the right to strike is, and must remain a basic freedom, it can never be a right that is superior to all other rights.
That is a view that Conservative Members would endorse and they would add that the right to be consulted can never be denied.
4.30 pm
Most Members of Parliament have received a letter today from Mr. Roger Gale, vice-chairman of the Conservative Trades Unionists' Communications Group. [Interruption.] I understand that all Conservative Members have received it, and there are not many of them on the Opposition Benches. He writes:
The mandatory right of a worker to demand a secret ballot is not the same as a 'mandatory ballot'. The latter is imposed by Government—as was the 1974 ballot—but the former comes from the unionist himself. It is the latter—and the spectre of the 1974 Railwaymen's Vote—that Jim Prior has used to fend off demands for more meaningful legislation. It is the former—the mandatory right of a worker to demand a secret ballot—that the Conservative Trades Unionists' National

Council has endorsed three times in successive meetings and which was backed by 500 votes to 3 at the CTU National Conference in Nottingham.
I should like now to commend my own new clause, which provides for a compulsory secret ballot to be held before the commencement of a trade dispute. I part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) in this respect, in that whereas I accept that the trigger mechanism is supported by members of my own party in the Conservative trade union branches, I would prefer Parliament to legislate for the right for a ballot to take place when a strike call is made and on that consideration alone.
I can foresee difficulties when it is necessary to ask 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of a work force to sign a petition requiring a ballot to be held. If I were the shop floor convener of the union of which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is a member, I would demand to see the list of members who had signed the petition, in order to make sure that Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Adolf Hitler had not signed in order to make up the numbers and I would consequently know who the moderates are.
Although today we are discussing new clauses whose construction is defective, we hope that the Secretary of State will give us a guarantee or assurance that legislation will be introduced, next Session, or within the lifetime of this Parliament, which will cause secret ballots to be held when a strike call is made.
In conclusion, I remind my right hon. Friend of the verse of a beautiful hymn:
Through the night of doubt and sorrow
Onward goes the pilgrim band,
Singing songs of expectation,
Marching to the Promised and.
I urge my right hon. Friend to become a pilgrim and to join with us on the road to the Promised Land. By so doing, he will strike a chord that will go beyond this House and through our party to the majority of people who support us today in this crucial debate.
I was speaking to members of my own party in Dartford over the weekend, and one said to me "When you see Jim Prior, tell him to get his spinnaker up and take advantage of the wind that is blowing


his way." I hope that my right hon. Friend will do just that.

Mr. Giles Radice: What has been interesting about the speeches so far from the Conservative Benches is that they have illustrated once again the endless ability of Members on the Right wing of the Conservative Party to misunderstand industrial relations problems. They did it in the last Parliament, they did it in the Parliament before that, and they seem to be doing it again in this Parliament.
I am strongly in favour of ballots; in fact, I have taken part in them and helped to organise some trade union ballots—unlike Conservative Members. I am strongly in favour of them, where they are appropriate. They are not always appropriate. The issue, however, is not ballots as such; the issue before the House this afternoon is the new clause.
The truth is that the clause will harm industrial relations, and it will be almost totally unworkable. The first argument against the clause is that it will divide the work force. It is a recipe for minorities to stir up trouble against majorities. It could exacerbate rather than ameliorate organisational and inter-union disputes. Any Conservative Member who doubts that should consider what would happen, for example, in British Leyland if this kind of clause were to be applied. We should be likely, as a consequence, to get a much more divided work force. Conservative Members should ponder that before voting for the clause.
Secondly, it would be likely to cause more unofficial strikes. It would be likely to encourage unions to say "If our unofficial strike strategy is to be interrupted by this kind of action, with ballots demanded by any small group of workers, we shall cause more unofficial strikes"—and it should be remembered that most strikes are unofficial.
The third argument is that it could well prolong strikes rather than make them shorter, because the assumption behind the clause seems to be that minorities are always pacific, where as they are very often militant. It is the militant minorities who will very often use this kind of ballot clause to prolong strikes rather than to shorten them. Conservative Members ought also to consider that point.
The fourth point relates to the authority of trade union leaders. We often hear from Conservatives about the weakness of trade union leaders; indeed they are the first to criticise trade union leaders for not having sufficient authority. What do they think the clause would be likely to do to trade union authority if any small group of workers could demand a ballot during a strike or at any time? Conservative Members ought also to ponder that point.
Then there is the general atmosphere of industrial relations. I do not know whether some of the new Conservative Members remember the Industrial Relations Act. I do not know whether they remember how it soured the general atmosphere of industrial relations in the early 1970s, so that instead of the reforms that were needed in industrial relations, following the Donovan report, we had an Industrial Relations Act which set back industrial relations in this country by at least 10 years.
Let Conservative Members consider what would be likely to happen, particularly if there were a question of removing trade union immunities.
It is for these reasons that the trade union movement would be strongly against the clause; indeed, not just the trade union movement, but the employers as well.
The Engineering Employers' Federation has sent a letter to The Times, as have also some sensible Conservatives. The chairman of the Left-wing Tory Reform Group is reported in The Times today as saying that the Employment Bill critics are "out of touch". I think he is right. He goes on to say that those who are trying to amend the Employment Bill to impose compulsory ballots
appear to believe that radical changes in attitude and behaviour can be brought about by the magic wand of merely changing the law".
Conservative Members should think about that, too. The trouble is that many Conservatives are still harking back to the Industrial Relations Act. They really want compulsory ballots. That is the truth of the matter. This is just a halfway house to it. They want to remove trade union immunities, and this is one way of doing that. Like the Bourbons, they have learnt nothing and forgotten


nothing, and I hope that the House will treat the clause with the contempt that it deserves.

Mr. John Townend: I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). He seemed to consider that the record of his Government in industrial relations was very much better than that of the present Government. I seem to remember that last May one of the principal reasons why the Conservative Party was elected to office was that the British public had lost confidence completely during the winter of discontent, when there was rubbish on the streets and when it was not possible to get the dead buried.
New clause 4, which is tabled in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, differs in detail, but not in principle, from the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I know that the House is short of time and I shall not go into the differences of detail in drafting. I shall restrict my remarks to the principle, as I feel strongly that this is a matter of principle. Secret ballots are close to the heart of every true democrat. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, (Mr. Dunn) said, this principle has been fought for long and hard during election periods. It is difficult to argue against it. We should examine the Government's proposals in the light of that principle, rather than considering the sordid question of what trade union leaders are prepared to accept.
The Government are merely offering cash to finance ballots. If trade unions accept the recommendations of the TUC, the cash will be refused, and that will be the end of the matter. A union member will then be forced to go on strike without his having been consulted by a union boss, who might well be motivated by political considerations. He may have little or no regard for the desires or interests of the ordinary working man.
I submit that one of our great problems is that the trade union movement has its own political party which it finances. Many trade union leaders have a vested interest in ensuring that all Conservative Governments fail. Some trade union leaders may be tempted to use the weapon of a strike as a means of undermining the Government and their policies.

As has been pointed out, what better example could be given than that of the proposed one-day general strike. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated that that strike will be a political strike.
It is therefore essential to give the rank and file—the majority of whom are interested only in their livelihoods, their companies and their country—the right to express its view. It is only right that it should be able to overrule the politicos, who often masquerade as trade union leaders.
Alternatively, the union member could be consulted as at a mass meeting. However, I challenge the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He seems to have a lot of faith in mass meetings. It is clear from television programmes that organisers often do not count hands. It is very difficult for a man who wishes to vote against a strike—that has been called by shop stewards—to declare himself. He is often frightened by the bully boys.
I have spoken to many dockers in Hull. They have told me that the best way of asking for a swim in the docks is to vote against the shop steward's recommendation at a mass meeting. Although I do not necessarily agree with the Government's arguments against a mandatory ballot, as provided in the 1971 Act, I understand them. If a ballot could be described as a Government or bosses' ballot, trade unionists might close ranks and vote in favour of their leaders. New clauses 3 and 4 therefore give workers a right to call for a ballot.
It is insignificant whether the percentage involved is 15 per cent., 5 per cent., or 10 per cent. If the Government were to suggest a few percentage points more or less, those of my hon. Friends who support these new clauses would agree. By analogy, trade unionists should have a right to call a ballot just as shareholders have a right to call an extraordinary meeting of a limited company. Men have to make a momentous decision before striking.

Mr. Leighton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that shareholders of private companies should always be balloted before money is given to the Conservative Party?

Mr. Townend: Actions, such as those involved in a take-over of a limited company are often subject to the approval of a general meeting of shareholders.

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Townend: Many hon. Members wish to speak and I have undertaken not to speak for too long. A strike affects not only a man's livelihood, but the well-being of his family. In extreme cases, his job may be put at risk. We should remember that strikers will not receive the same amount of social security and although I support that measure, it is only fair that they should have a right in law to express their views.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that if the Government had made more concessions and had made closed shops illegal, there might have been less feeling among Conservative Members about secret ballots. People talk more and more about consultation and industrial democracy. What is more important for a worker than to be consulted before a strike? There is no doubt that public opinion demands secret ballots. I accept that the Government's proposals are exactly the same as those that appeared in the manifesto. However, my right hon. Friends should bear in mind that people do not read the small print in manifestos. The general public wanted secret ballots and they felt that if they voted Conservative and returned a Conservative Government, that would be achieved. Whatever appeared in the manifesto, if we do not give the public that which they expect, they will become disillusioned.
The issue is one of principle, not practicality. I appeal to my right hon. Friends to listen to the overwhelming mass of opinion, to Conservative trade unions and to many of their Back Benchers. I beseech them to meet us more than halfway. They should undertake to introduce further amendments in the House of Lords, or, if that is not practical, to accept in principle that more legislation should be brought in during the lifetime of this Parliament. If they accept that principle, they should promise to introduce a Green Paper in order that methods may be discussed.
The Government should put their trust in the sound common sense of the working man. They should cut the chain of thraldom and end the monopoly power of trades unions. I hope that I shall not have to vote against the Government. However, unless I receive some assurances, I shall have to support whichever new clause is put to the vote.

Mr. John Evans: I am glad to have an opportunity to participate briefly in the debate. Like my hon. Friends, I believe that it is important for the House to dispose quickly of these new clauses. I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to sit here until 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning discussing such peripheral matters.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) indicated that Tory Members felt strongly about this subject. I suspect that any Conservative Member who is called to speak will give vent to strong feelings. Those of us who have been at the sharp end of industrial relations—as shop stewards, conveners and branch secretaries—should try to convey to Conservative Members the practicalities of life on the shop floor. Conservative Members have a theoretical approach. The hon. Member for Winchester spoke about "national strikes". There are very few national strikes. The overwhelming majority of industrial disputes fake only one to four days. They are settled quickly. They are brush fires that have arisen as a result of strong feeling about an issue on the shop floor.
The clause does not differentiate between small brush fires—which occur throughout industry—and national strikes. I recommend that Conservative Members should read one of their favourite newspapers, The Daily Telegraph. The leader in yesterday's edition discussed this Back Bench proposal, and stated that
in the end this is a proposition which falls down on the test of practicality. Most strikes and stoppages are transitory affairs, which could only be rendered more complex and time-consuming by the withdrawal of legal immunities unless ballots had first been held.

Mr. John Gorst: On the other hand, The Times today suggested that this group of proposals should be supported by the House.

Mr. Evans: Well, I could quote from The Times, The Guardian and many other newspapers. All I can say is that


The Times does not have a very good industrial relations record itself, and it should keep its opinions to itself until it puts its own house in order.
It has been pointed out that, if ballots are held to start strikes, equally it is necessary to have ballots to stop strikes. Contrary to the views of many Conservative Members, the vast majority of shop stewards and full-time union officials spend more time keeping their members in work than persuading them to come out. One of the weaknesses in adopting clauses of this nature is that, once a strike has started as a result of a ballot, the chances are that individuals will flatly refuse to go back until what they felt were their just demands had been met in full. That would create anarchy and chaos in industry.
Many unions already hold ballots before participating in industrial action on a national basis. Many unions, my own included, have ballots for every single officer elected, from the assistant district secretary up to the general secretary or president of the union. Our officials always lay their policies before the membership in a manifesto and they are the subject of all sorts or checks and balances in relation to the form that industrial relations should take.
Conservative Members have a love-hate relationship with trade union leaders. The hon. Member for Winchester made the point that one of the great problems was that trade union leaders were a weak and spineless lot, incapable of giving proper leadership to the rank and file. He claimed that that was why the leadership had passed to the militants on the shop floor. Later he attacked the leaders as dictators and demanded what individual had the right to call thousands of workers out on strike and threby put their jobs in jeopardy. Conservatives must make up their minds about trade union leaders—whether they are to be responsible or whether they are to take account of the collective views of their members. Conservatives must not assume that trade union leaders work in a vacuum and call their members out on strike whenever they feel like it.

Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Member has prayed in aid the fact that some unions volun-

tarily conduct ballots in accordance with their rules. Yet the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) claims that if there are secret ballots they will cause all sorts of difficulties and troubles. He believes that they will set one part of the union against another. I cannot understand that. Is he saying that voluntary ballots in unions such as the National Union of Mineworkers are all right but if we try to give that right to members of other unions there is something wrong?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend said that it was up to the members in each union to work out the procedures which best suited their union. I should have thought that that was the normal and correct procedure to adopt.

Mr. George Park: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in common with other organisations, the trade union movement set up its rule book in accordance with the wishes of its members? It has periodic opportunities to alter the rules if the members do not like them. In addition, ballots are written in to the rule books of the unions. If the members want a ballot, they have every opportunity to write it into their rules.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If time allowed, I would go through the procedures of my union and explain how the rules apply. However, it is only my intention to try to put across to the Conservatives the practicalities and realities of industrial life.
I urge Conservatives to recognise that men and women who work for their living do not want to go on strike. Circumstances invariably force them to take action for one reason or another and very often that reason is not wages. Employers have often unilaterally sought to impose change in conditions on workers and often the reaction is instantaneous. The workers down tools and walk out with the shop stewards begging them to come back and enter negotiations. Industrial relations are complex and involve millions of people.
I ask Tory Back Benchers to appreciate that the Secretary of State is wrestling with a Bill that is difficult and complex. The Opposition are completely opposed to it, but at least we appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with complex affairs. The sledgehammer contained


in the new clause would sour industrial affairs and be a recipe for disaster, resulting in far more time being lost in strikes than was the case in the past. Even at this eleventh hour I beg Conservative Members to withdraw these dangerous clauses which they seek to force upon the Government and the trade unions. God help them if they do not.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I wish also to speak to new clause 5, which I have tabled. It must be fairly unusual to debate five new clauses and one amendment at the same time, but I readily accept that the reason why they have all been grouped together is that they are similar in principle.
Tonight we are debating a question of principle, not detail. In spite of what the press and Labour Members have said, I do not believe that this is a Tory Back-Bench revolt—or at least not yet. The variations in these new clauses show that there has been no concerted attempt to rebel, but a spontaneous feeling that the principle of secret ballots should be debated in more detail than hitherto and at the earliest opportunity. That opportunity is now.
I support the new clauses, but I admit that we do not expect to win the vote tonight. Perhaps we may not need to vote. I believe that we have performed a useful function in giving the House the opportunity to debate the question of statutory ballots for almost the first time—[Hon. Members: "That is not true."] With respect, the question has never been debated in the Standing Committee or on Second Reading. The Government said that there was no mandatory obligation to hold a ballot and that was the end of the argument.
It is surprising that this matter has not been debated because many of us feel that the question of the democratic voice of trade union members goes to the core of good industrial relations. Yet the Bill in its present form tends to ignore the rank and file in favour of trade union officialdom. There has been virtually no debate about ordinary trade union members having the right to ballots on matters that are of profound importance to their livelihoods.
I am not setting out the arguments in favour of statutory ballots. That is what went wrong with the railwaymen's vote in 1974. I am advocating not statutory ballots but the statutory right of workers to demand secret ballots. There is a fundamental difference, as anyone who understands industrial relations appreciates. That is why there is now total silence on the Opposition Benches.
5 pm
I am convinced that the broad strategy and the step-by-step approach to industrial relations legislation adopted by my right hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend is wise to proceed carefully and only after maximum consultation. It has been seen that this aproach is beginning to pay off. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends. My aim is to indicate to my right hon. Friend what might be his next step and to suggest that the issue of secret ballots is one on which the country, the trade unions and certainly the Conservative Party feel strongly.

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend says that my right hon. Friend is right to proceed step by step and after full consultation. Does he not agree that if these proposals are carried there will not have been time for full consultation with outside interests on either side of industry? In a matter as complex and difficult as this one should not proceed without full consultation.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has a point. I do not believe that any of the new clauses will be carried, but we will have made a strong statement in principle. There may not be a vote. I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend may give an undertaking that will satisfy us. In that case, there will be no Division. I have had very little consultation with the Whips.
The purpose of these new clauses is to give rank and file trade union members the means whereby they may take the initiative in ensuring that their views are known on the subjects specified in clause 1 of the Bill, thereby making sure that when significant numbers of active trade unionists are in disagreement with the centrally expressed policy of a trade union on the subject specified they may have the right to ascertain the views of the entire membership on those issues. There is nothing in my new clause 5 that would


impose the views expressed through the ballot on trade unions' decision-making bodies. The purpose of such ballots should be consultative. They would not conflict with the unions' present constitutional arrangements.
There is a fundamental flaw in the other new clauses that we are debating. They would impose a legal obligation on the trade unions concerned to implement the decision of the ballot. That is a mistake. It then becomes necessary to consider penalties if a union refuses to obey, with all that this means by way of court action and the prolonging of industrial disputes. That is the one thing we want to avoid.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Can the hon. Gentleman quote one example of any union which has held a national ballot on any issue when the national executive of that union has not carried through the decision of its members?

Mr. Colvin: I have a feeling that the NUJ is one example. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. The whole point is that, under the proposal contained in my clause, essentially a consultative process, if the result is in favour of a certain course of action, the trade union leadership will be under a strong moral obligation—not a statutory obligation—to carry out the process. What happens if they refuse to have the ballot? I am giving the right to ordinary working people to say to the bosses of the unions "Look mate, we don't agree. We want a ballot. We don't think you have got matters right. We think our commonsense approach is better". That is what I am advocating. If Opposition Members will listen more to what I have to say, they will find that my remarks make a lot of sense.
No Government, employer or any other outside agency should dictate to a union that it must hold a secret ballot. Under the clauses, with the exception of new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the workers within the union—the ordinary rank and file—will trigger the process, thereby exercising their democratic right to have a say in matters that are crucially important to them and their families. Balloting arrangements such as I have suggested are not an imposition on trade unions. They will help prevent the im-

of unwanted policies. They are less a legal obligation and more a conferral of rights.
The 1968 Donovan report, often quoted in debates on industrial matters, put forward three major practical objections to compulsory strike ballots. The first was that they could not be enforced in the case of small-scale, unofficial stoppages. The second, mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), was that experience in the United States showed that such ballots usually resulted in a vote in favour of a strike. The third was that ballots might delay and restrict union leaders' ability to agree a settlement during collective bargaining.
My new clause 5 attempts to overcome these problems in two ways. First, ballots would not be mandatory for every strike. They would be mandatory only if a sufficient number of workers felt strongly enough to demand a ballot. Secondly, the results of the ballots would not be compulsory in the legal sense. They would provide an indication of the level of support for a proposed settlement and so enable a union leader to know whether a bargain could be made to stick. It gives him information and power.
I should perhaps add that, in the United States, collective bargaining is a darned sight tougher than in this country. There are more legal restrictions on strike action. It is hardly surprising that ballots in the United States normally come out in favour of strikes. The situation is so dissimilar to that in the United Kingdom that we should not be too hidebound by it.

Mr. Crowther: The hon. Gentleman now talks of ballots that are not binding. He spoke of the NUJ, of which I happen to be a member, as an example of a union that, in his view and in his recollection, had not observed the result of a ballot. At that time, from a sedentary position, I shouted "No". What he says is absolutely wrong. Is he aware that the NUJ is one union that writes ballots into its rules and that its ballots are binding on the national executive? There can be no question ever in that union of the executive not carrying out the result of a ballot.
Will the hon. Gentleman do his homework before coming to the Chamber and


trotting out things he has somewhere in his mind that are usually wrong? Would it not be helpful if Conservative Members knew what they were talking about before uttering such nonsense?

Mr. Colvin: I bow to the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman as a member of the NUJ, the union in question. I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman has got the matter right. I thought that the NUJ blew hot and cold and never made up its mind whether to obey the instructions of a ballot. I stand to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman's was an interesting and lengthy intervention.
My new clause is based largely on the rights that shareholders enjoy under the Companies Act 1948. This analogy with the Companies Act was first suggested by the Institute of Directors. Its argument is that shareholders have the right to requisition general meetings and the circulation of resolutions and so have a direct impact on decisions that will affect the use made of their investments.
Statutory balloting arrangements would surely give trade union members the same right to have an impact on decisions of their trade unions and, in turn, have an effect on the investment that each worker makes of his time and labour.
Surely it is not for me to demonstrate that trade union members should be granted that obvious right. The case proves itself. It is for the Secretary of State to convince the House that ordinary rank and file trade unionists should be denied the rights which shareholders enjoy under the Companies Act 1948. The ball is in the Secretary of State's court.
On many occasions the Government have said that they are determined to get the complex industrial relations law right. They have proposed their step-by-step approach. I agree with their aims, just as I agree with almost everything in the Bill. I welcome the way in which the Secretary of State has fought his corner on industrial relations and the way in which he has bent over backwards to ensure full and detailed consultation. Even while his Bill is before Parliament he is prepared to introduce and consider new ideas in working paper form for further consideration. That is all that we ask.
If the Secretary of State accepts the principle that the worker should have the

right to demand a secret ballot, we might not have to vote this evening. The vote is immaterial but it is important that the principle is accepted. If it is, that will be a major step towards giving ordinary working people a real say in their future and the opportunity to demonstrate that, when their voice is heard, common sense usually prevails.

Mr. Leighton: I am reluctant to intervene in the debate for any length of time because I do not wish to prolong the most nonsensical and least important debate that we shall have on the Bill. However, I derive some wry amusement from seeing such a large collection of Tory hawks. I am reluctant to intervene in a family row. Tory Members exhibit animus and hostility whenever trade unions are discussed. They have demonstrated their naivety about the industrial world. The further away hon. Members' lives have been from industry the more likely they are to vote for new clause 3. Government Members show a complete lack of knowledge of industry. They believe their own simplistic propaganda. They live in a fantasy world where the vast majority of trade union members are "moderates" and trade union general secretaries are "militants" who spend their time rampaging round the country and calling strikes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government Members seem to believe that with secret ballots the goodies will always win and the baddies always lose.
We are not against ballots. The trade union movement lives by ballots. It is our way of life. We need no lectures about ballots. I am pleased that Government Members are in favour of them. Perhaps we could extend ballots to the place down the Corridor. Perhaps Tory members will join us in seeking to abolish that place.

Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend contemplates extending ballots. Does he recognise that the most harmful and damaging decisions for workers are taken by employers? Perhaps we should consider balloting workers about employers' decisions.

Mr. Leighton: In my industry The Times locked out its workers for a year and there was no question of a ballot. What about a ballot for the Prime Minister? Perhaps there should be a secret


postal ballot of all members of the Conservative Party to decide upon their leader. Soon the Post Office will have a new boss. Will there be a secret ballot of workers in the postal industry to decide who he or she should be? How did Michael Edwardes get his job? Was there a secret ballot? I am pleased to see that Conservative Members have been converted.
Hon. Members talked of shareholders being consulted about whether their money should go to the Conservative Party. We were told that they can commission a meeting, but not a secret ballot. Conservative Members argue in favour of secret ballots but shareholders cannot ballot about whether their money should go to the Conservative Party. I was amused that the CBI voted this year in favour of secret ballots—and they did that on a show of hands.

Mr. Colvin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my union, ASTMS, took a decision by secret ballot at one of its branch meetings to send some money to the Conservative Party? Opposition Members are worried because under a secret ballot their party might not receive the funds that they do today.

Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. In the trade union movement we decide whether we want to send our political levy to the Labour Party, whereas company money is voted by the directors.
Most of the unions use ballots. In my union members ballot on industrial action before it takes place. In Committee we sought to extend balloting. We argued that ballots should not only be for employees of trade unions but for shop stewards. We said that in addition to pillar box democracy, or postal ballots, other ballots were equally valid and genuine. For example, the general election does not involve a postal ballot. The National Union of Mineworkers conducts pit-head ballots. My union uses ballot boxes. Members are given their ballot papers by scrutineers. The ballot boxes are taken to head office and scrutineers, elected by secret ballot, count the votes. In Committee we wanted to bring such forms of election into the ambit of the Bill.
We did not divide on clause 1. We did not vote against ballots. However, we argued that ballots should be voluntary, not compulsory. We said that it was wrong for the State to tell voluntary bodies how they should run their affairs and what constitutions they should have.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman made a comment about the contributions to political parties by companies. Is he aware that if 5 per cent. of the shareholders of a company desire they can, under the law, call for a special general meeting and resolve by a simple majority what they so desire? That is precisely the procedure which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) proposes should be applied to trade unions.

Mr. Leighton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not grasp the argument. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) is not in favour of a meeting and a democratic show of hands, but a secret ballot. He does not want the procedure to be the same as it is at shareholders' meetings. Perhaps the penny has dropped. Conservative Members are so naive that they do not understand. They should listen to Members with industrial experience and we shall explain as we go along.

Several Hon Members: rose—

Mr. Leighton: If I may be allowed another couple of sentences I shall give way later.
In Committee we asked for an extension of balloting, provided that it was done on a voluntary basis. We were unequivocally and categorically assured by the Under-Secretary that:
There is nothing in the clause, however subsection (3) could be amended, which could empower the Government to require mandatory ballots. That is absolutely clear.
The Secretary of State then said:
I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is no provision within the clause for mandatory power for ballots. I want to make it abundantly clear that that is not the purpose of this clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 1980; c. 95–100.]
It was on that understanding that we wanted an extension of the provisions and we did not divide the Committee.

Mr. Harold Walker: I recall that we spent 10 hours in Committee debating


the clause which deals specifically with ballots. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), who opened the debate today, was a member of that Committee. He uttered not a single syllable, during the whole proceedings about ballots. He could have debated in Committee the clause that he has placed before the House today.

Mr. Leighton: It could well be that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), like some other hon. Members, being so unused to industrial affairs did not understand what we were talking about. The penny dropped only after we had completed our thirtieth session or our hundredth hour. Perhaps he was prevailed upon by some of his colleagues.
British trade unions—I emphasise the word "British" because we invented them—will never succumb to compulsion.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: You did not invent them.

Mr. Leighton: It will never be possible to coerce British trade unions to alter their constitutions by law. I point out to Conservative Members that the ballots they desire could never be a panacea. They are not a magic wand which will solve our industrial problems.
Let me give an example from our experience of recent months. The miners voted to accept the offer of 20 per cent. made to them. That is why there was no dispute in the mining industry. The steel workers were offered nothing. Is it any wonder that there was a dispute? That dispute was nothing to do with ballots. It happened because one group of workers were provoked and set up. The steel strike was deliberately engineered by the offer of nothing to the steel workers.
If hon. Members believe that the goodies will always win as a result of secret ballots let them look at the example of the miners yet again. The miners have a great propensity for electing militants by ballot. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will back me up when I say that. The miners have quite often voted for Communists.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, but I was a moderate.

Mr. Leighton: With polls of over 70 per cent. they voted in Arthur Horner and Will Paynter. That great ogre Arthur

Scargill—on a transferable vote—secured over 70 per cent. of that vote in Yorkshire. The idea that secret ballots will automatically ensure that the goodies win and the baddies lose is nonsense.

Mr. Ogden: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) gives the wrong impression about the organisation and composition of the National Union of Mineworkers—which might be what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover might like to happen—I must say that the NUM represents many opinions, both political and industrial. The membership of the union is evenly balanced. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends who belong to the union, as I do, can give a more accurate picture than the one being painted by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leighton: In Committee the Under-Secretary wisely said that industrial relations were "delicate and difficult". In those circumstances, flexibility is of the utmost importance. Once ballot papers have been issued the whole procedure is frozen. It takes days for ballot papers to go out and if there is a vote in favour of a dispute it subsequently takes a long time to call it off. The whole procedure becomes immobile.

Mr. Bob Dunn: rose—

Mr. Leighton: The issue cannot then be settled by negotiation. Most strikes are unofficial and most of them are short. If, every time there is a dispute, we must trundle out this procedure of the secret ballot I believe that we shall encounter great difficulty.

Mr. Mikardo: We would get longer strikes.

Mr. Leighton: We would be in for longer strikes.
Because I have given way so often I shall cut out some of what I wished to say. But I mention two things. Firstly, in the ill-fated 1971 Act there was provision for compulsory ballots and one such ballot took place among the railway workers. Hon. Members in this House know exactly what happened on that occasion.

Mr. Bob Dunn: After listening to the rather long and tortuous speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East


(Mr. Leighton) I have yet to hear whether he is in favour of shop floor workers being consulted about the possibility of a trade dispute.

Mr. Leighton: The answer is that in my industrial experience—and in my union—that has always been done.
I end by quoting from the Donovan report. The experts looked into this matter and they said of compulsory strike ballots:
This proposal is based on the belief that workers are likely to be less militant than their leaders and that, given the opportunity of such a ballot, they would often be likely to vote against strike action … A law forbidding strike action before the holding of a secret ballot could not be enforced in the case of small-scale unofficial stoppages, which make up the overwhelming majority of the total number of strikes. … There are other objections to such ballots. Once a vote has been taken and has gone in favour of strike action, the resulting stoppage may delay a settlement by restricting union leaders' freedom of action.
The Donovan Commission also reported that experience in Canada and America showed that the holding of such ballots led to more and not fewer strikes. It stated:
We think it preferable that trade union leaders should bear and be seen to bear, the responsibility of deciding when to call a strike and when to call it off.
They are elected, they have a job to do and they should get on with it.
It is the same with the Government. When they doubled VAT they did not have a secret ballot, nor do they keep running to the voters to hold permanent, regular referendums in relation to their other policies. It is a big mistake to expect trade unions to do that on every occasion.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have listened with interest to the points raised on both sides of the House. It appears to me that the arguments on one side have been well thought out and the arguments on the other side have been extremely badly thought out and have entirely missed the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] The cries of "Hear, hear" from Opposition Members still miss the point because it is Opposition arguments I speak of when I say that some arguments were badly conceived.
The core of what we are discussing is not the right to strike. The right to strike is not under threat. The right to strike is enshrined in the belief of every hon. Member. As the law stands, what is under threat is the right to work. Those of us who tabled the new clause are concerned with the right of union members to work.
Those who wish to work can be brought out on strike by their union leaders, against their wishes, even though they are in a majority. That is the key to this debate. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be led into a strike when he does not wish to strike by someone who claims to represent the union which is ignoring the wishes of the majority of its members.
The right to work is far more important than any trade union leadership dispute about whether a strike should be called. The right to work is fundamental to the freedoms of our society. That is the key to this debate.
5.30 pm
The weakness of the legislation proposed by the Secretary of State—legislation which is in general supported by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that, if we continue with a voluntary ballot and there is no compulsion for a ballot to be held, those trade union leaders who act responsibly and genuinely represent the membership of their unions will hold ballots, as they do now. Therefore, we shall have achieved nothing. But there are trade union leaders who wish to bring out their membership, knowing or suspecting that the membership does not wish to come out on strike, often in the interests not of their membership, but of political dispute, in an attempt, as many of them have said, to bring down a particular Government. That is the kind of irresponsible trade union action that a compulsory ballot would prevent if our proposals were adopted.
I do not believe that Labour Members would dispute that proposition. When they were in Government, they were as keen about the political motivation of disputes as we are. Many Opposition Members, particularly on the Front Bench, have frequently said, even when the action taken is against a Conservative Government, that that is not proper and responsible leadership of the trade union movement. None the less, it happens. It


is that that we wish to prevent. We do not want people in those circumstances particularly or in any circumstances in general to be brought out on strike when they do not wish to be brought out. That is the key to this argument.
The advantages of having a compulsory ballot are clear. There have been many examples in the past 12 months of ballots having been used to demonstrate the wishes of trade union members in which, by following the results of those ballots, the trade union leadership has properly represented those whom it leads. But there are other examples where ballots have been taken and ignored or have not been taken at all, in which the leadership has gone ahead with its wishes irrespective of the true desires of those whom it claims to represent.
It occurs to me that, unless there is a compulsory ballot, no great advance will have been made. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the points that have been made in general by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and Dartford (Mr. Dunn) who have forcefully and ably argued the case for compulsory ballots to be brought into this legislation.

Mr. Greville Janner: We have endured a Conservative manifesto, often referred to. Its main terms and purport I understood to be the promise of less legislation and compulsion from Westminster and more freedom for people to express their own views and to carry out their own affairs in their own way. These proposals are exactly the opposite. They are, of course, designed only to affect the trade union movement, which presumably is excepted from the general Conservative rule that people are entitled to regulate their own affairs.
In my view, as a lawyer, it is a great mistake to introduce too many laws to affect industrial relations because they do not work. Indeed, they cannot work. They are not and cannot properly be designed to enable people to regulate their own affairs on the shop floor. If we try to interfere too much from here, we almost invariably achieve exactly the opposite result to that intended.

Mr. David Mellor: The hon. and learned Gentleman voted for two Bills, each running to over 100 clauses. Would he care to reflect on his observa-

tions about the usefulness of the law having some relevance to the two Acts introduced by the Labour Government?

Mr. Janner: Certainly. The first of those Acts, in 1971, was designed to get rid of the Industrial Relations Act and to strengthen the unfair dismissal rules which are being weakened again by a Conservative Government.
The second Act was designed to give trade unions the freedom to carry on their own affairs, to have disclosure of information in the course of collective bargaining—which the Conservative Government introduced in 1971 but never implemented—to be consulted about redundancies, alone among worker organisations to have the right to be consulted about health and safety, and not to be prosecuted or persecuted for carrying out their duties and functions. That freedom is now being restricted by this legislation. There is only one object in this legislation—to prevent trade unions from carrying out their functions freely and from regulating their own affairs.
I submit that it is for the trade unions to decide whether a secret ballot is appropriate in a particular case. The miners, the AUEW and the electricians have secret ballots because they have decided to have them. We do not have secret ballots in this House. No one has ever suggested that we should.

Mr. Michael Brown: Our union cards.

Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman talks about "Our union". We represent people who are entitled to know how we voted. We are not ashamed of what we do. We are standing up and saying "This is what we believe", and our constituents are entitled to know the way that we voted. There is much in favour of secret ballots on appropriate occasions.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there are instances of trade union coercion and there are many instances in which people who stand up and act against their trade union leadership's advice are in danger of having reprisals taken against them?

Mr. Janner: There are cases of coercion throughout. There is coercion in this House. If Conservative Members know what happened during the immigration debate, they will know why their


incipient revolution collapsed. There is coercion by managers. Look at what is happening in British Leyland. There is coercion everywhere. But what there is not is the lack of courage of individual trade unionists. We have recently witnessed people saying to their shop stewards "You have recommended us to strike. We do not agree with you." There has been no fear. There has been a whole series of decisions, much applauded by Conservative Members, where people have said "We do not agree with our shop stewards. We are not going to do what they say." There is no fear. It is for them to decide how to regulate their affairs.
There are occasions when secret ballots are worthwhile. There are others when people should be able to say "This is my view. I shall express my view and my comrades, my colleagues or my constituents are entitled to know what that view is." It is for the individual organisation to decide.
The ultimate question for decision by the House is: are trade unions to be forced into holding ballots in situations which will often make matters worse? The hon. Member for Bristol, Northwest (Mr. Colvin) referred to the railwaymen's dispute. He said "It went wrong". We know what he meant when he said that. He meant that there was a vote in favour of a strike. For Conservative Members a ballot goes wrong if the workers decide to exercise their right to withdraw their labour. They say "We are all in favour of the right to strike", but when anyone exercises that right there is always an outcry. Workers are entitled to exercise the right to strike and they are entitled to decide when they will and when they will not exercise that right.
Interference from this place does not create fewer or shorter strikes. It creates more tand longer strikes. That is what happened between 1971 and 1974. That is why there was such a series of unhappy and disruptive strikes. That is why, alas, we are having the industrial relations atmosphere poisoned again. That is why the Opposition are begging the Government to withdraw this legislation. We see exactly the same happening again by the actions of those who learn nothing

from their mistakes, except how to repeat them rather more gently and leisurely in a series of Acts rather than in one, and with a certain amount of dissent amongst themselves because they are not going fast enough.
The new clauses are being introduced by Government Back Benchers because they do not believe that the Government are going far or fast enough. Labour Members believe that the Government are going too far and too fast in a direction in which they should not be going at all. It is wrong to legislate in such a way as to trammel trade unions in the proper carrying out of their duties and affairs as we insist upon doing. It is wrong to compare them with the shareholders in a company. Trade unions have no share in the profits of companies. Anyway, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West was wrong in his law. The Companies Act does not require secret ballots even when companies are about to ruin themselves in almost any conditions. The oppression of minorities is a limited concept in law.
Conservative Members are wrong to refer to the position in the United States, where I spent a year studying the matter. Secret ballots do not prevent strikes there. The United States has rather fewer strikes, but they tend to last longer. Secret ballots in the United States do not mean fewer unofficial strikes. Indeed, there are more; and we shall find that we have more unofficial strikes. If the workers do not like a certain position, they may say "I shall not work under these conditions. I shall walk out ". What does one do in such circumstances? Will the workers be arrested? That is a risk that we face. These are not criminal provisions, but they could lead to ordinary people achieving the crown of martyrdom. They may say "We are not interested in your laws". That could lead to precisely the breakdown of the rule of law which we on this side of the House seek to uphold.
These are bad clauses which it is proposed to add to a bad Bill in a way that will not work. In these circumstances, we not only ask the proposers of the clauses not to press them but we ask the Government to think again before introducing legislation of which these clauses are intended to form part.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the detailed, immensely knowledgeable, and well balanced speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). However, I part company with him in his condemnation of the Bill. I wish to speak against the amendments. I say to my colleagues, and to Opposition Members, that that is not the pattern that I followed in Committee. Having suffered the frustrations of a Back Bencher in Committee, I am relieved to have the opportunity of saying something further at this stage.
It is not the time to make a fundamental change in the Bill. The fact that the amendments were not aired in Committee makes it unsatisfactory that such a change should be made now. The opportunity existed in Committee for these points to be discussed. Many hours were spent on the relevant clauses. Whatever the constraints that exist in Committee—and all hon. Members who sit on the Government Benches know them—the amendments should have been started at that stage, when adequate discussion, especially with outside organisations, could have taken place.
Another reason why I oppose the new clause is that the Bill is a piece of enabling legislation. It allows trade unions to make more use of secret ballots—if they believe that to be right and proper—within their organisations. I shall look to trade unions and to trade union leaders—and the country will look to them also—to utilise secret ballots more often if their members clearly wish that to happen. The evidence shows—and here I am in agreement with those who support the new clause—that there is a will and a wish among trade unionists for secret ballots to take place on more occasions than has happened in the past.

Mr. Budgen: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. If anything was being done about the closed shop these clauses would be unnecessary. They provide a means by which trade unionists may express their disagreement with the way in which the union, into which they are locked, is being run.

Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend may have a point, which I shall not dispute. Certainly the power of a closed shop is

strong. Ultimately, I should wish to see it less strong. The steps being taken in the Bill are helpful in that they move in the right direction. The Bill leaves a great responsibility on trade union leaders to respond to the wishes of their members. I accept that they would be sensitive to those wishes.
Surely a fundamental of the Government's policy at this time—and a fundamental for what Opposition Members would wish to see in Britain in the future, whatever the difference of approach—is that ultimately this country should achieve greater productivity, and that we should be more effective. Unless that happens the economic policies of neither Government—be it this Government, the previous Labour Government or any future Government—will have any relevance. I ask myself whether these new clauses in practice, and if introduced at this stage, would actually help or hinder the drive towards increased productivity? It is my view that they would not help.
There is a need for unions to pay more attention to the views of individual members. The present clause on secret ballots allows them to do that. I suggest that they would be well advised to respond, and to follow the provisions in the clause. I am in no way satisfied or encouraged by the action of the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress in condemning the value of the original clause. He is totally misguided to do so. I look for a change of attitude on that issue.
It is my hope that in the vote tonight, if it comes to that, Opposition Members will give due weight to the advantage of secret ballots to them, and to the trade unions which they so strongly support. I hope that they will reflect the view that has come from the Opposition Front Bench today that secret ballots do have a value, and that unions already use them, and will give credence and credibility to the fact that the Government's current proposals, as they stand in the Bill, will provide greater opportunity for secret ballots to take place if trade unions so wish.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I have held the opinion for some years that one of the basic matters wrong in British politics is that we tend to judge ideas on the basis of the source from which they eminate, rather than on the basis of the


idea itself. I shall not support all the new clauses. I shall not support those that compel a union to hold a secret ballot against the wishes of its members. However, new clause 3 does not seek to do that.
I find myself in strange company when supporting the new clause. But, quite frankly, I do not believe that the new clause is any the worse for that. The fact that strange company moves a clause is not a reason why I should, or should not, support it. I should judge the clause on its merits, and that is what I tried to do in Committee.
I have always been especially concerned about the rights of individuals arising from Government proposals. The new clause has some respect for the individual who is within a trade union, or who is involved in an industrial dispute. That is why I shall support new clause 3. I accept that the clause could have been moved in Committee, and that that is a good debating point. However, that in no way weakens the value of the new clause. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, there are often good reasons for not moving amendments in Committee. It may be that an hon. Member, when moving an amendment in Committee, knows that "You ain't going to get no support, even from your own side ".
I listened with great interest to Conservative Members who have talked about a weakening of the closed shop. It may interest them to know that I tabled an amendment to make the closed shop illegal, and that only one Conservative Member had the courage to vote for it. There were many speeches in support of the amendment, but only one Conservative Member voted for it. That was the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
All I am saying is that the fact that the new clause was not moved in Committee is no reason for saying that it is wrong. Therefore, we should first have a look at what the new clause suggests. If it suggested that a union shall hold a secret ballot of its members full stop, I would not be in favour of it. That it why I shall vote against new clause 2. But new clause 3 does not say that. It says that if a good proportion of the members—not the Government or the Secretary of State—want a ballot, a ballot shall be held. It is the

members of the union who will be able to force such a ballot.
One can argue that 15 per cent, or 500 is not sufficiently high. I would not necessarily agree. Apparently that figure has been suggested because of some company law or other. However, I believe that the rights of minorities should be protected in law. That is the function of the House of Commons to protect the rights of minorities as well as to uphold the rule of the majority. Trade union minorities, like minorities in many other movements, do not always have a lot of rights. All that the new clause says is that if 500 members—not an entirely insignificant number—or 15 per cent., whichever is the lesser number, say "We want a ballot", there shall be one. I cannot understand what the objection can be to that type of law. Such a law seeks to enhance the rights of trade union members, not to reduce them.

Mr. Ogden: I should like to raise a purely practical point. How will it be made known how many members have written to their national office asking for and requisitioning a ballot? Who will check on the mechanics of the matter? Who will check, discover and publish whether or not 15 per cent. of the membership has written to ask for such a ballot?

Mr. Smith: The new clause makes clear what it is 15 per cent of. Therefore, there can be no argument about what constitutes 15 per cent. The new clause makes that quite clear. The only issue is whether those who requisition a ballot fall within the terms of the new clause. I am prepared to accept the word of the executive committee of a union as to whether the people requesting a ballot are members of a union and fall within the scope of the new clause. I would accept as being hon. ourable the word of the national executive of a union which said "We are sorry, but this does not constitute 15 per cent. There are signatures of some who are not members of the union". If someone seeks to challenge that, let him do so, but for my part I would certainly accept the decision of the national executive committee of a union in that respect.
We have heard phrases such as "hawks" and "wets". I must make it clear that I am not a Government hawk, and I am certainly not a critic of the Secretary of State. On the contrary, I am


a strong supporter of the Secretary of State and the manner in which he is dealing with industrial relations in the Bill. I happen to believe that the new clause will strengthen his hand rather than weaken it. Frankly, what matters to me is not that it strengthens his hand, but rather that it strengthens the hands of union members and their right to say what their union shall do and when it shall do it. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.
I have heard some hon. Members argue that decisions go wrong. By that I assume they mean that sometimes when a ballot is held, a strike will result. That does not worry me in the slightest. If it is the wish of the union members that there shall be a strike, and if that wish has been expressed through the ballot box, it is proper that the union should call a strike. I am not concerned about what the result of the ballot is. I am concerned about the right to hold a ballot, and I am concerned that that right should be available to members of a union themselves to decide. If a sufficient number of the members of a union require that a ballot should be held, in my view it is not improper that this House should protect their rights by inserting a clause of this kind into the Bill.
It is for those reasons that I shall support new clause 3, but not new clause 2. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for this chance to say a few words in support of the broad approach which is being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I have long thought that his attitude to this delicate area of trade union legislation was the better course of valour and the wisest path to follow. I understand the reasons which led many of my hon. Friends to table the new clauses and to argue their case so forcefully. However, I remind them and the House that the principal aim of the Bill is to encourage more responsible trade union behaviour at all levels as well as to limit the potential for abuse of the law by trade unions.
As it is at present drafted, I believe that the Bill will put the onus upon any unrepresentative trade union leaders to say why they oppose the use of public funds to finance secret ballots. That is a more effective and interesting way of en-

couraging the use of secret ballots and of encouraging them to grow slowly but surely. If we were to follow the line suggested by so many of my hon. Friends, I believe that it would undermine the vital voluntary element in the Government's approach towards legislation in this area, thereby reducing the chance of making that legislation last. Unless we can make legislation last in this crucial area, all sorts of other things in the economy cannot and will not go right.
Furthermore, we must consider whether interference of the kind suggested by my hon. Friends in the new clauses would lead many trade union leaders to argue with some plausibility that a Government were seeking by means of legislation to interfere directly and unnecessarily in internal trade union affairs and practices. That is something on which the Industrial Relations Act 1971 largely came to grief, and I do not wish to see that mistake repeated.
There is no doubt that the new clauses in respect of mandatory ballots could increase unofficial action. That is also a serious point. I am sure that all my hon. Friends know that unofficial action is the main bugbear in industrial relations in this country. About 95 per cent. of all strikes and stoppages are unofficial in some way or other, and they tend to be predominantly of short duration. The proposed sanction in new clause 3(5) would withdraw immunity from those taking official action, thereby perhaps unwittingly encouraging unofficial action.

Mr. John Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. When opening the debate, I said that new clause 3 should be read in conjunction with new clause 6. It is proposed that they will deal with unofficial action with the same sanction of lifting immunities under section 13.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving clarification on that point. However, with great respect, I should like to seek legal advice as to whether the other new clause, as it is at present drafted, would have that effect.
There is also the danger of validating the action of unofficial militants who take industrial action. There is always the tendency—I am sure that many of my hon. Friends recognise this—for trade union leaders to find out which way their rank and file are running and then to lead


them in that direction. There is a real danger that these new clauses will exacerbate that tendency. But, more important, tactically, they would prejudge and undermine the detailed consultations and preparations that are now being carried out in advance of the Government's Green Paper on trade union immunities—an area of law which must be studied carefully and at length and with full consultation. If immunity was withdrawn from all unofficial action, or even some categories of it, we would run the risk of prejudging that important Green Paper.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right on this occasion—as on most other occasions—to proceed cautiously, stage by stage. The slogan "Trust the People" may have a familiar ring to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it should also include trade union members.

6 pm

Mr. Ogden: The comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) introduced some common sense and courage which has been singularly lacking in the speeches of hon. Members—excluding that of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). His words must have been music to the ears of the Secretary of State who has maintained a most impassive expression throughout the proceedings. He has given no sign of his thoughts on any speech.
I wish to take the precaution of declaring a possible interest in the debate. I am a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, and I am sponsored in the House by that union. If either the amendments or the Bill are passed, it may be of financial advantage to my union, so I take this precaution of declaring an interest.
I wish to make three points—one to show that I am still an optimist. Whether I can persuade the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and his colleagues that what they want is what I want, is not the argument. If they want every union member to have a voice and a vote in the major decisions taken by his or her union in matters that affect their working life, place of work, wages and conditions of employment, I share that aim. I think that the whole House would share that aim and intention.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) seemed to miss one point. How can anyone know that 15 per cent. of union members have written to union headquarters, on presumably the prescribed form? How can they know where they will be printed and displayed and made available? Who will check whether they arrive? Without police activity and an outside body—presumably the Department of Employment—that cannot be done. Who will say when that can be implemented? The mechanics have not been followed through.
Conservative Members above the Gangway—those hardy sons of toil, three of whom are awake, and those below the Gangway, one of whom is contemplating deeply—were elected on a manifesto based on three main points. I ask any Conservative Member to tell me whether I am wrong. They were elected on a commitment to less taxation, less Government expenditure and less Government interference. In broad terms, that was the Conservative Party's commitment to the country.

Sir Ronald Bell: There was, of course, a fourth commitment that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention—the correction of the abuses of trade unionists.

Mr. Ogden: Perhaps at some stage the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise the dilemma between that fourth commitment and two of the others. The Government cannot have it both ways. They are saying that they will reduce public expenditure, but this Bill will increase public expenditure. Is it not the purpose of the Bill to provide funds to enable union members to take actions that they are capable of doing without such funds? Is that not an increase in Government expenditure? Is it not Government intervention? Of course it is.

Mr. Radice: Far be it from me to defend the official line in this debate, but, as I remember the Tory Party manifesto, it did not include anything on the lines of this clause.

Mr. Ogden: I read part of the Tory Party manifesto. It is not widely circulated in West Derby—nor is The Times and other such publications. However, the Tory Party is committed to less Government intervention and less Government expenditure.

Mr. Robert Adley: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). Will the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) confirm that the Bill, as originally drafted, was almost precisely as it was outlined in the Conservative Party manifesto?

Mr. Ogden: It was not as detailed in the manifesto, and this clause was not included.
As I said, all Conservative Members are committed to less Government expenditure and less Government intervention. But there is a contradiction and a dilemma. I may not persuade Conservative Members to withdraw their amendments, but they should recognise the dilemma in what they are trying to do. Trade union members already have a voice and a vote in the conduct of the affairs of unions. I have that right in my union. Individual trade union members should take a little time and trouble, and not expect someone else to make it easy for them to exercise what some people call their democratic rights. The policies of my union and other unions are decided by those people who take the time and trouble to attend meetings—not just once a year when things get rough, but regularly. The structure for that is there. Once a year the members of my union have the opportunity of changing the rules—a process that is pursued at branch levels, local meetings, and so on.
The Bill and these amendments try to do for other people what they are capable of doing for themselves, if they take a little time and trouble. The National Union of Mineworkers does not want the taxpayer to subsidise it in any way. It pays for its own ballots. Perhaps it is easier in that union than in other unions. But for many years the NUM has done by itself what Conservative Members say can only be done by legislation.
This House is the worst place in the world to decide industrial relations legislation, as events over the last 15 years have shown. But, even if the aims of Conservative Members can be achieved in this way, they are not going about it in the right way. It is misleading to think that, by approving an amendment, the Government can do for other people

what they are capable of doing themselves. The only solution to the way in which union policies are decided is for more people to take the trouble to take part in decision-making.

Mr. George Gardiner: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). Until the hon. Gentleman spoke I was getting the feeling that comes over me frequently when we discuss these matters—namely, one of amazement. It is apparently assumed by many Labour Members that they have some exclusive knowledge of how trade unions work.
Like the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), I joined a trade union after the first few weeks of my working life. I was not in a closed shop—I did not have to join the union—but subsequently I worked in one. No one asked me to join. I was a volunteer. I went out of my way to join my union and have been a member of it ever since. My membership includes serving on a branch committee.
It is a rare and pleasant privilege to be able to welcome a speech made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I thing that the hon. Gentleman cogently presented the motives that inspired the new clause. He effectively disposed of any accusation that the clause is the product of hard-line Right-wing hawks within the Tory Party.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on the way in which he moved the Second Reading of the clause. The hon. Member for Rochdale spoke for the Liberal Party, and I do not think that there is any doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester spoke for the Conservative Party throughout the country. An early-day motion that he drew up and tabled a few weeks ago echoing the terms of the clause was signed by more than 100 Conservative Members. That must be a fair measure of opinion in the party throughout the country.
My hon. Friend was also speaking for Conservative trade unionists. As we have heard, at three successive meetings the National Council of Conservative Trade Unionists has called for rank-and-file union members to be given a mandatory right to demand secret ballots. When the proposition was put to the CTU national


conference in Nottingham it was endorsed by 500 votes to 3. My hon. Friend was speaking for the mass of union members—there are many of them—who pinned their hopes on the Conservative Party at the general election.
We know that there are Ministers who wish all power to our elbows. There are PPSs who would dearly love to support CTU policy. If we are driven to a vote on the clause, my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary knows that for every one Conservative Member in the Aye Lobby there will be at least two outside wishing that they were passing though it.
I have a great respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that he cannot be happy with the prospect of voting tonight with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and his chums against the hopes of so many of his own trade unionist supporters.
The hon. Member for Rochdale dealt well with the red herring of compulsory ballots. We are not talking about compulsory ballots such as the one ordered for the railways by a Minister in 1974 under the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I agree with those who say that that would be a road to disaster.
We are not giving power to a Minister to demand a secret ballot. However, we are seeking to give rank-and-file trade union members the freedom to demand one. We are seeking to give a right not to Ministers but to the shop floor. We are not arguing the detail of any one scheme but the principle. We are seeking a trigger mechanism. I am sure that my right hon. Friend can find faults with the trigger mechanism proposed by my hon. Friend. I am equally sure that thought and consultation would easily produce another.
Why is it necessary to give rank-and-file union members this right? I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends—I do not doubt that it is within the experience of many Labour Members—have been contacted by members of a union as a strike has been threatened and asked "What can we do to get a ballot on this? How can we establish that this is the majority feeling of the workers involved?" I have had such approaches. I am sure that in the bitter winter of 15 months ago many of us had such approaches from lorry drivers and Health

Service workers who did not like one little bit what they were being dragooned into doing under the sanction of the closed shop.
It is necessary to give rank-and-file union members this right because we have seen the abuse that is frequently exhibited at factory gate meetings. We have witnessed the degree of intimidation that can be applied at such meetings. Strikes of the most damaging sort have been called, and it has been questionable whether they have had the support of a majority of the union members involved.
6.15 pm
The steelmen employed by the British Steel Corporation have been cited. I accept that if there had been a ballot before that strike started it may have been found that a majority was in favour of strike action. Of course, if the Bill incorporates provisions of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend, it will be incumbent upon employers, when they see the prospect of a ballot by union members, to ensure that those members have something reasonable to vote upon.
Apart from the BSC strike, there was the related dispute in the private steel industry. I defy any Labour Member to show that if the workers in the private steel industry had been consulted by means of a secret ballot they would have voted to join the dispute. If a ballot had taken place, the clear answer would have been that they did not want to join the dispute.
Only recently 18,000 members of the Transport and General Workers Union have been called out at British Leyland without any proper democratic consultation or regard for what they really wanted to do. We are told that on 14 May transport workers, railway men, local council workers and many more are to lose a day's pay without ever having been properly consulted on whether they want to engage in such a futile and abortive demonstration. The orders have come from on high; and under the sanctions which we know exist under the closed shop they will in many instances be obeyed.
The Bill offers State funds for ballots. I hope and trust that some union leaders will take them up. Some leaders have set their faces against them, but they are out of touch with their rank and file.


They are determined never to suffer the pain of hearing what their members actually think. They are truly the Bourbons of Congress House. Despite the Bill, their members will continue to be denied any real say in crucial union decisions. The sanctions of the closed shop will continue to secure their compliance. This is the scandal which we seek to put right.
When my right hon. Friend replies he will no doubt indicate that he has a great deal of sympathy for the demands that have come from trade union members in general, and especially from Conservative trade unionists. He may offer to include the proposal that is set out in the new clause in his promised consultative document. What is the status of that document? Is it to be followed by legislation. or is it not? The best guidance that we have had so far is that it might be. That is not good enough. Without a statement of a longer-term intention, such an offer would not add up to very much.
In all honesty I put a straight question to my right hon. Friend. I know that he will give a straight answer to it when he replies. Is he willing to put proposals into the consultative document to give workers a right to ballot with the intention of legislating after that consultation is complete? If his answer is "Yes", the objective of the sponsors of the clause will largely have been met.

Mr. Ogden: I think that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) said some kind things about me in his opening remarks. I do not want to cause any waves. However, what is the point of open, honest, free, frank and wide-ranging discussions and consultation on possibilities, if what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Secretary of State "Whatever the consultations that take place, you do what we are asking."?

Mr. Gardiner: I am suggesting that the consultation should be on exactly the same basis as the consultation that my right hon. Friend offered before he introduced the Bill. That was an offer of consultation on the basis of a document. The Secretary of State listened to the representations that were made and in due course legislation was presented. I am simply asking that the consultation arising from the document that is promised later this year will be on that

same basis, on the assumption that legislation is to follow it according to the views presented in that consultation process.

Mr. David Madel: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about consultation. If the consultation reveals that large sections of industry, having carefully considered the new clause do not want legislation on the lines he envisages, presumably he will accept that and not require my right hon. Friend to legislate.

Mr. Gardiner: It is already evident from the verdicts that have come up through the Conservative trade union movement and from what has been stated by many leaders of industry in the press over the last few days that there is a strong demand on the factory floor and elsewhere for legislation that covers this point of principle. The point of consultation would be to work out the most appropriate way in which that could be put into legislative form.

Mr. John Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what advice has come from the CBI on this issue, and what practical objections the CBI has made to any proposal for compulsory ballots?

Mr. Gardiner: The CBI has not yet had an opportunity to discuss this matter formally because it has not yet been put into a consultative document. That is what we look forward to.
The Conservative manifesto has been mentioned and tossed around. I know that there are limits to what can be understood by "manifesto", and I agree that not everyone reads the fine print. I will read one small part of the fine print:
Every trade unionist should be free to record his decisions as every voter has done for a hundred years in parliamentary elections, without others watching and taking note. 
Every trade unionist should have this freedom, not just those whose national leaders consent to grant it to them. That is the policy on which we fought the last election. That is the policy endorsed by three successive meetings of the national council of Conservative trade unionists and carried almost unanimously at its national conference. That is the hope of thousands upon thousands of


rank and file trade unionist members who voted for us in the last election, and that is the principle on which I shall judge how to use my vote tonight.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: We do not need to look further than the sponsors of the clause and some of the speeches made by Tory Members to account for the woeful state of industrial relations. If ever there was a set of political "bovver" boys it surely is the people who have subscribed to the clause and those who support it. When I was listening to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) I was reminded of the march in Lewisham on Sunday afternoon. I do not want to be unjust and equate Tory Members with the National Front, but political "bovver" boys is a fair expression to describe the people who are pursuing this type of argument. The Secretary of State—for whom I have the utmost respect on the issue of industrial relations—must from time to time feel a bit like the Duke of Wellington. I do not need to finish the quotation.
The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who is not in his seat, was the first indecently to expose himself this afternoon as being completely against trade unions per se when he said that, had the Secretary of State made the closed shop illegal, he would not be supporting the clause tonight. He was the first to blow the gaff on the personal detestation of certain Tory Members for organised labour. They do not mind labour because they need labour; labour is a profitable commodity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said. They do not mind labour except when labour is organised, and they like it even less when it is highly organised.
When the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst)—"Radio Grunwick"—intervened to quote the editor of The Times on this issue, he was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Has he forgotten for how many months that august pillar of the Establishment was not published, and why? The editor of The Times is the last man I would want to quote as an authority on good industrial relations—indeed on any sort of industrial relations.
I do not know Mr. Frodsham of the Engineering Employers' Federation. He might be a perfectly nice man. He could not be as nasty as some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon. He must be a fairly honourable individual to have reached the position of director-general of the Engineering Employers' Federation.
I sympathise with Clive Jenkins in having so many Tory members in his union. I know that some Tories have had experience in industry. I know also that when they talk about the shop floor they are talking about Debenhams or Fortnum and Mason and not about the factory floor. To be fair, some have had industrial experience, but I would not expect any of them to have had as much industrial experience as has Anthony Frodsham. He makes two extremely important points in his letter to The Times of 21 April. He refers to the letter of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) of 17 April and says that the amendment referred to in that letter:
may in practice worsen rather than improve industrial relations.
He goes on to say,
It is surely utterly unwise for such a fundamental change to be introduced without effective consultation with the parties concerned. The Engineering Employers' Federation's initial investigations suggest that there are considerable dangers.
I put it no higher than does the director-general of the Engineering Employers' Federation.
If secret ballots are forced on an unwilling trade union movement, there will be serious repercussions. Conservative Members seem to be obsessed with ballots.

Mr. John Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the events that occurred during the engineering strike last year add credibility to Mr. Frodsham's letter to The Times?

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I do not want to engage in a slanging match. If the hon. Gentleman wants to slang the Engineering Employers' Federation, he may do so, but he must recognise that the federation is to the employers what the trade union joint committees are to employees.

Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Frodsham wrote that letter from experience.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Perhaps my right hon. Friend is suggesting that the hon. Member for Winchester has no such experience.

Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Frodsham wrote his letter after having had experience of the engineering dispute last year and in the light of that.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that point.
I joined my first trade union—what is now the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Trade Union—when I was a 16-year-old apprentice. At that time, the rule of the union was that apprentices had to be 18 years old before they could join the union. I wrote to the then general secretary, Mr. Kelly, saying that, if I was old enough to work, I was old enough to hold a union card. I was the first 16-year-old apprentice to be accepted in the union. The rule was subsequently altered, because the national executive committee saw the force of my argument.
From the age of 16 I was used to postal ballots in that union. When I went into management I joined the General and Municipal Workers Union. I am sponsored by that union and am secretary of the sponsored Members' group. I have been balloted by that union as well.
If a union freely decides to ballot its members, it is right and proper that it should pay for the privilege of holding the ballot. Perhaps I am the suspicious, introvert Northerner that I have been described as being more than once, but I bear in mind that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The fear of the trade union movement about accepting State money for the holding of ballots is that, once the provision becomes law, there is no knowing when the Act may be amended, particularly by the present Government. That is why I hope that we shall have nothing to do with such ballots.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) I have to declare an interest as a trade unionist. Indeed, I am the treasurer of my branch of the National Union of Journalists in the West of Scotland. Unfortunately, although I control the cash, I have not yet been able to

persuade the union to sponsor me in the House, as it sponsors the hon. Member.
The case put against the new clause has been pretty weak. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) advanced what he regarded as the devastating argument that, if there is a ballot before a strike, there must be a ballot to get the men back. That is a load of rubbish, because there is no reason why, on the basis of a voluntary ballot, as opposed to a mandatory ballot, a return to work should not be carried out within the normal rules of a union.

Mr. Mikardo: The theme of the argument of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was that it ought not to be possible, on the say-so of one man, to get people to stop work. Why is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should be possible, on the say-so of one man, to get people back to work, whether they want to return or not?

Mr. Taylor: I am not saying anything of the sort. The Conservative Party does not believe that people should be forced to do anything in this category. As a trade unionist, the hon. Gentleman knows that if there is a demand for a secret ballot about whether a union should go on strike after an offer from the employers and the majority of members say that there should be a strike, there is nothing to stop the union, operating in the normal way, from negotiating with the employers thereafter and recommending a return to work on the basis of a revised offer.
Although these matters are complex, unless we go for mandatory ballots it is rubbish for the hon. Gentleman to say that if there is a ballot before a strike there must be one before the men can go back.
The second argument against the new clause is that there is no need for it because there has not been a great deal of coercion and because workers are not forced to go on strike against the wishes of the majority. I do not suggest that trade unions are more corrupt or guilty of more misunderstanding than the rest of society, but at mass meetings decisions are often taken by a minority, not simply because there is a minority seeking to impose its will but, because of the appalling problem of apathy.
As one who is taking part in trade union activities actively for the first time and has been attending meetings regularly, I find that apathy is caused, not by disinterest, but because trade union meetings are often long and tedious, take place at venues that are not convenient for the general membership and, because of the way that agendas are run, the meaty decisions are taken at about 10.30 p.m. when the last bus or train is about to leave.
There is a great problem of trade union decisions not being majority decisions and trade union leaderships not necessarily being representative. Something must be done. The hon. Member for West Derby said that the answer was for trade unionists to take a more active interest, but he must recognise that there is a general problem of apathy to which an answer must be found.
The third argument against the new clause is that things are going well, events at British Leyland show that there has been a great improvement, and that we should let well alone. It would be wrong to draw any general conclusions from British Leyland, which is hovering on the brink of collapse and has appeared to be on the verge of bankruptcy from time to time.
I cannot see that any case has been made against the principle of the new clause. On the other hand, I must say to all those who, like myself, support the principle, that we should not make the mistake of thinking that it will be easy to resolve the problem. Since my return to the House, I have found many hon. Members supporting principles. For example, almost everyone supports the principle of a complete restructuring of the common agricultural policy. That is easy to say, but when one discusses the means of doing it, the apparent unity disappears in a flash. As someone who spent his working life in labour relations before coming to the House of Commons to represent a Glasgow seat, I say: please do not think that this is an easy problem.
If we accept the principle of the right to have a voluntary ballot, the first—and very important—problem to be faced is: what is the unit? Is the unit to be the trade union membership as a whole, or is it to be the local branch, the district or the area? This problem is often ignored.

My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has chosen to give his answer in his new clause. He has said that it should be the bargaining unit, where there is an offer being made in writing. It may be in a shop, it may be in an area, or it may be a national offer. But if we accept that it should be more than the massive trade union membership, cannot hon. Members see the most apalling trade union problems arising? Are they easy to resolve?
I give an example from my own working experience. Suppose that I am working on a newspaper and that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) is working on the same desk. Suppose that we are called out on strike because there is a dispute about a house agreement, concerning which negotiations are taking place. Suppose that we are out on the street for a week and then there is a national strike called by the trade union, as a result of which everyone has to go out on strike. But suppose that meanwhile someone has asked for a ballot on our house agreement and that the result of the ballot is that the boys say that they do not want to go on strike over the house agreement. What then happens? Do we say that we on our paper go back to work because of the ballot—obviously, if we did not, it would make a nonsense of the whole business—or do we say that we stay out, in which case the ballot does not take place? My hon. Friend will be aware that employers can be pretty ruthless at times. Often during a general strike in an industry an individual employer likes nothing better than to have his newspaper published or to have his work go ahead.
The next question is: what is industrial action? It would be very easy if industrial action were just men walking out on strike after a union decision, but the one thing that has emerged in recent years in a very big way is the variation in what is involved in industrial action. It is not just the old variations of a work-to-rule or sit-down strike. There are all kinds of things, such as non-co-operation. The most exciting one that I saw was when everyone agreed that because of pressing personal reasons they were not able to work overtime.
The third general point that I make to my hon Friend and others is: do remember that it is very difficult indeed


to draw a fine distinction—as the supporters of the new clause have—between a voluntary and a mandatory system of ballots. The feeling is that if there are mandatory ballots, somehow we have the involvement of the law, the courts and the policemen, whereas, if we have voluntary ballots, none of these people is involved. But it is not as easy as that.
Under the new clause—and it is a very important and detailed proposal—what happens if a railway strike is called right across the country and, under the clause, 500 railwaymen say "We want a ballot"? The action would then have to be suspended. One might take the view that there is no need to suspend the action, but my hon. Friend has faced up to this and said that, if there is a request for a ballot, the action must be suspended.
What do we say, then, if the national executive of the National Union of Railwaymen, taking the view that the great majority support the union's action, says "We shall ignore this and go on with the strike"? We then have the problem of the full range of the mandatory principle. We have the individual steelworks manager saying "My work is being held up because of this strike, which appears to be illegal." We have a whole series of actions for civil damages, common damages, and so on.
Can we also leave out police involvement? If we are to have the principle of a ballot depending upon 15 per cent. of workers asking for a ballot, or 500 people, my hon. Friend will be aware—and this is a very important point—that people will say "I am signing this petition, I think 15 per cent. have decided, but how can I trust these union officials, who are all Communists? How do I know that they are not tearing up the ballot papers as they are going in, or throwing them out into the bucket?" Who is to check up on all this? Who is to decide whether 15 per cent. of the membership have sent in their names?
6.45 pm
It would be difficult to do it, in my view, unless one had some official, some policeman or some legal person whose job was to check up on all these things. Before we know where we are, we are very closely back to our old, unfortunate, 1971 Act. Those who think that

a very fine distinction can be drawn between the voluntary ballot, which does not involve any policemen, court officials or lawyers, and the mandatory ballot of the 1971 Act, should realise that it is not as easy as that.
I make my final point as someone who supports the principle of the ballot—I should like my right hon. Friend to go ahead with negotiations and to sort it out—but have we honestly thought in the long term not just of the good consequences but of the other consequences which might arise if we have this instant referendum technique? Have we thought what would be the effect on the authority of trade union leadership in negotiation?
I spent five years in the Clyde shipyards, where we had loads of strikes and appalling labour relations. The problem was not that the trade unions were too powerful. The problem was that the trade union leadership was too weak, did not have authority, and could not speak for the membership. That was the big problem. Are we to be able to resolve this automatically if we have the instant referendum?
Would it strengthen the authority of the House of Commons if on any major issue coming before the House at any time we were to have instant referendums in our constituencies? When I was last in the House, I was almost stoned for suggesting that the question of capital punishment might be a suitable issue for a national referendum. I was told that it was an appalling suggestion and was upsetting all the principles of Burke, and so on, and that if we wanted to have strong, good, decent Members of Parliament, they should be given a five-year mandate and allowed to get on with the job.
What about trade union leadership? What about negotiations? How are we to have strong, powerful and adequate trade union leadership if on issues where the strike threat is one of the bargaining weapons, there is the possibility, non-stop, of the instant referendum? This is something that should be thought through carefully.
I am sorry to have spoken for 10 minutes instead of the five minutes that I promised someone who was trying to put very great pressure on me. I think that my right hon. Friend will find that most of us support the principle, but to those who have put it forward I say: please do


not think that it is an easy problem or that it will solve all our labour relations difficulties.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I, too, wish to be brief in my contribution. I rise to speak because I am deeply suspicious of any group or any party within this House which thinks it has the philosopher's stone, the cure-all or the panacea that will solve the problems of industrial relations in the 1980s. I have a deep suspicion of certain people in the Conservative Party who seem to think that ballots are an alternative to a serious and constructive industrial relations policy.
From my experience of industrial life I believe that there is no substitute for good industrial relations. In the real world there are bad and good employers. In the real world there are bad and good trade unionists. There is good and bad on all sides. We know that the real job is to bring men of good will on either side of industry together to work constructively for the future of all our people.
But in industry it is essential to treat people like human beings, whether they be on management side or the trade union side. The importance of this principle is often missed. We cannot legislate for that. Ballots, and the introduction of the instant ballot, will not do anything to change this basic fact. Most men of good will on each side of the House will realise—I am sure that the Secretary of State realises it—that the issues and the problems of industrial relations in Britain in 1980 are far more fundamental and are far more related to our history of social class and social division than any mucking around with ballots could put right.
I draw the attention of the House to an industrial dispute in which a ballot is being used at this very moment in trying to resolve a problem. I refer to Hopkinsons Limited, an engineering company of great renown in Huddersfield, just outside my constituency. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). I see that he is one of the sponsors of the new clause. He is not in the Chamber at the minute. There has been a dispute at Hopkinsons for nine long weeks. The dispute arose—Conservative Members might be surprised at this—because the management unilaterally abrogated an agreement between manage-

ment and trade unions that was worked out over a long period of time and signed by each side 18 months ago.
The agreement was effective and increased productivity by 20 per cent. It was a good agreement. It secured pension rights and the closed shop that both management and trade unions wanted. The Secretary of State for Employment visited Hopkinsons Ltd. and said that it was a fine example of management and trade unions working together. Then a senior manager was replaced and overnight that agreement was abrogated by management. This led to a strike that is now in its ninth week. It includes everyone from the office girls to the security police. Every union worker in that establishment is on strike.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: The management refused to negotiate about a pension scheme—the central issue—and refused to take part in a civilised discourse between civilised human beings on the management and trade union side. Rather than resolving the dispute, the management suddenly decided last Friday to hold a ballot. Instead of holding consultations and cementing good union and management relationships, the old Gaullist frame-word of "civilised life" was imposed. The management said, in effect, in its ballot: "We have three questions for you to answer chaps. They are simple, and all are loaded against your trade union and your negotiating position". The first proposition was that employees should have the opportunity to express their views at a mass meeting to be arranged. The workers had to answer either "Yes" or "No". The second proposition was that the company's proposals provided a basis for negotiation. Again the workers could only answer "Yes" or "No". The third proposition was that trade union officials should re-open negotiations. What a loaded ballot. Conservative Members have not come clean about this, including those who have tabled the new clause. Who will design these ballots?
We have seen the problems that referendums involve in other countries, especially France. We have seen that referendums can be easily loaded towards one point of view. Anyone considering


the Hopkinsons ballot will see that ballots are not a substitute for industrial relations. They will destroy the good relationships that so many good companies have built up.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: I shall give way shortly. The legislation, and this clause, will destroy industrial relations, not improve them. Opposition Members have consistently put forward that argument both in the House and in Committee. If one introduces a "panacea" that does not solve the profound problems of British industry and if one goes for fools' gold, one ends up undermining the good that exists. This is a pernicious clause in a poor piece of legislation. The Opposition have consistently opposed it. Such cure-alls will do nothing to help our position.

Mr. John Carlisle: Some time ago the hon. Gentleman uttered remarks that referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). Did he have the courtesy to tell my hon. Friend beforehand that he would make such remarks?

Mr. Sheerman: I apologise. I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman. As he is a sponsor of the Bill, one would expect him to be here. I did not intend any discourtesy.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of his constituents work in the factory that he has mentioned?

Mr. Sheerman: That is certainly the case. I took it for granted that hon. Members would be aware that my constituency contains about half the work force of that firm. As I thought that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was a sponsor of the Bill, I thought that he would be here.
Finally, the 1,700 men who are on strike in my constituency are good, sensible and productive workers. They do not like strikes or bad industrial relations. However, for some years they have been treated as something less than human beings. That is the crux of the problem, and it cannot be solved by ballots.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I wish to interject a note of caution about

these new clauses. My remarks will be very much along the lines of the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). In principle, we are probably all in favour of secret ballots, just as in principle we are all, no doubt, against sin. Will these new clauses, and the ringing declarations of principle that follow them, improve industrial relations? I fear that they will not. I fear that they will lead to an epidemic of ballotitis, which could infect and poison industrial relations in many way and for many years.
The precedents for the uses and abuses of the mandatory right to ballot are by no means universally encouraging. Several hon. Members have referred to the National Union of Journalists. I am a member of that union of some 13 years standing. It is a very democratic union. It is a broad church. It has members to the Right of General Franco and to the Left of Chairman Mao.
However, few issues in recent years have caused more heat and passion than that of the closed shop in journalism. There were endless ballots on that issue. The policy of the national executive was reversed by ballot. It was then taken to conference by ballot and reversed by conference. I shall relate only half the saga. However, the net result was total confusion. When we had great debates on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act in 1974 and 1976, virtually nobody could confirm the policy of the NUJ towards the closed shop in journalism. When the dust settled, this burning issue was properly settled at branch, or as we call it, chapel level by individual trade unionists who argued in the traditional face-to-face way.
The same point could be made about another union. I refer to Equity. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) read out part of a letter from Mr. Roger Gale of the Conservative Trades Unionists' Communications Group. He seemed to think that it was wholly in support of these clauses. He stopped reading the letter just before an interesting paragraph, which refers to Equity. It states:
It is the mandatory right to demand a ballot—the 'referendum' that the moderates in British Equity have so successfully used to keep their union out of the hands of the broad left".


The shop steward of the moderates in Equity is my brother-in-law, the actor Mr. Nigel Davenport. Naturally, I have heard a great deal from him about his battles. At times I have felt about those battles as Lady Eden was supposed to have felt about the Suez Canal: that it flowed through her drawing room. When one hears the stories about ballots for and again Vanessa's loonies, for and against Davenport's dare-devils and for and against Marius Goring's go-getters—issues that have been well publicised—one wonders, as a fellow trade unionist in the communications industry, if the issues might not have been better settled by traditional shop floor discussion.
The points raised so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East are valid. The issue is much more complex than some of the speeches in favour of the new clause have implied. The mandatory right to ballot is a two-edged sword. The situation is not perfect without a right to ballot, or with a right to ballot. More consultation is needed before taking any dramatic legislative step. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary are right to talk of a brick by brick approach. My right hon. Friend resembles the beleagured figure of Horatius on the bridge. As Lord Macaulay said:
But those behind cried 'Forward!'
And those before cried 'Back!'
I believe that my right hon. Friend is more or less guarding the bridge in the right place and in the right way. I shall support him in the Lobby tonight.

7 pm

Mr. Golding: I declare an interest as a national officer of the Post Office Engineering Union for 20 years. I am curious about the objective of the new clauses. Is it thought that they will increase democracy in the unions? If that is their objective, they will fail. Is it thought that they will reduce the number of strikes? If that is their objective, they will also fail.
I make it perfectly clear that I agree with those who believe that Britain's strike record is nowhere near as bad as it has been painted by Conservative Front Bench spokesmen in the past and by the media. In a recent Department of Employment press notice I read:

In the international 'league table' Britain's strike record remains a respectable one. Some people might be surprised to know that strike losses of working days for every 1,000 employees were worse in the United States, Canada, Australia and Italy in the last five years for which we have figures.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend is making a valid point. Is he aware that the first two countries that he mentioned—those with the worst strike records—have legislation for ballots?

Mr. Golding: That is so.
The press notice continues:
Virtually all the 70 manufacturing companies in a German survey said that productivity in the period 1977 to 1979 was 'satisfactory' to 'excellent'. Some even claimed to have higher productivity than in Germany. And eight out of 10 had had no official stoppages in the previous two years.
Other surveys have come up with similar findings. A recent study of a group of nearly 200 foreign owned subsidiaries of overseas companies in the North-West of England revealed that only one had experienced a strike.
This is not a press notice issued a year ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). It was issued on 11 April this year by the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the Earl of Gowrie. That was the Government's official view on strikes in this country—a different point of view from some that we have heard expressed from the Conservative Benches.
To listen to Conservatives today one would think that the generality of experience is that national trade union officers and their executives go round the country constantly looking for trouble and for incidents to exploit. One would think that they constantly tried to bring men and women out on strike. Those of us who have been involved in industrial relations know that that is a travesty of the truth. The reality is that the vast majority of trade union officials are constantly trying to maintain peace and discipline and to put pressure on union members to keep agreements. The reality of industrial life is that full-time union officials are often pressed by activists to go much further. It has not been my experience that active trade unionists tell their executive that it is going too far or that it is fighting too hard. In fact, the active rank and file often tell full-time officials that they are not fighting hard enough, that they are


making too many compromises and that they are too moderate. That is the reality of the national leadership. Often it takes up a position that is far more moderate then the rank and file want it to be.
The picture from the Conservatives is one of a full-time official being rather like a general or a managing director of a firm—someone with the authority to order people out and to keep them away from work. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it is often difficult for activists to get people out on strike, it is sometimes difficult to persuade them to go back to work. Those of us who are trade union officials must work within a democratic framework. We are not working within the Army or within the hierarchy of industrial management. We do not have public school traditions of discipline and fagging behind us. We have to work within the established democratic framework. Our constant problem is to reflect the points of view of different sections within our unions. It is often difficult and complex to determine precisely what the rank and file want. The point of view which comes across from the Tory Benches is most unrealistic.
Would the holding of ballots reduce industrial conflict? I do not believe that it would. The new clauses are an unofficial strikers' charter. The Chief Whip is frowning at me and looking at the clock, so I shall finish my remarks shortly. All these clauses do is to forbid the official union machinery to call a dispute or create industrial action without a ballot. In no way would they stop unofficial action. At a time of tension all that these clauses would do would be to pass the leadership from the elected, accountable, official leaders to the unofficial leaders and it would be far more likely that Communists would take over the leadership of unions in industry.
Would the new clauses make the present system more democratic? I do not think so. I do not believe that referendums are necessarily democratic. After a vote had been taken and people had voted to go on strike, it would be very much more difficult to get them back again; that is certain. I believe that the argument has been put that there would have to be another ballot to get the workers back to work. That would be true in practice. If

people had balloted to come out in support of a claim and that claim was not met in full, the trade union would need to have another ballot to persuade its members to return to work unless the employers had conceded everything that was being balloted upon in the first place.
I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that the position in relation to referendums is the same in the unions as in our own political constitution. One of the great objections to referendums is that people will often vote without considering in detail the issues involved. In the absence of enough information, they are just as likely to vote for a strike as against one.
I very much hope that, in the interests of sound industrial relations, the Government hold the line tonight. I could speak longer, but the Chief Whip does not believe in ballots. He believes in intimidation. I shall therefore resume my seat.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am also aware that there is a clock on each side of the Chamber and that both Chief Whips can see them. I shall be as brief as possible. I signed the early-day motion orginally concerned with this Clause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have raised the matter. This is not only a constitutional issue but a highly complex one. The principle is whether the average individual member of trade unions is given a secret ballot and, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, we provide for the protection of the rights of individuals in our society.
My right hon. Friend, when he replies, will no doubt say that there is need for further time for consultation and for Green Papers and White Papers and all other colours of papers. More important, I suggest, is that if he accepts the principle of the secret ballot, he must examine and consult about the actual machinery for such a process. It is the principle and the machinery that needs to be established.
It is argued that secret ballots were not adumbrated in the Conservative manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) disposed of that. I believe that there is a feeling throughout the country and amongst the majority of trade unionists that the possibilities of the secret ballot should be explored and


if possible implemented. My right hon. Friend has some ammunition. It may not be possible for the clauses, as drafted, to be included in the Bill. That may give an excuse for the House not proceeding to a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend will direct his attention to those matters. The fact should not escape him that a large number of my hon. Friends, a large number of trade unionists and a considerable body of opinion in the country do not want the matter to be swept under the carpet in a Green Paper. They want to see the matter properly explored and to ensure that the machinery that is imposed and used is right and just.
I have listened to all the arguments made in the debate. I have been present the whole day. I understand the complexity and the difficulties of the machinery. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give the House sufficient assurance so that these amendments will not need to be put to a vote. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance on the legality of the new clauses, that he will reiterate that the principle is accepted and that, if there is to be consultation, the views of his hon. Friends will be considered. I hope he will make sure that there is agreement amongst all parties about the machinery to be used in this difficult operation of the secret ballot. If he can give those assurances, we may be able to avoid a Division.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I hesitate to intervene in this debate. It is very much a debate that is taking place on the Government side of the House in the sense that all the disagreements come from that side. This shows the difficult task of the Secretary of State in trying to convince his hon. Friends that this is a complex matter and that ballots will not necessarily result in better industrial relations. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, they could result in more difficult industrial relations. In any event, the Opposition are anxious to debate the wider and more fundamental issues associated with the Bill. We have put down amendments that have been selected by Mr. Speaker. I would not like the debate to pass, however, without giving the Opposition's view on this issue.
7.15 pm
I am always amazed by the naivety of some Conservative Members. Some of them—certainly a substantial number of those who have addressed the House—give the impression that if only ballots were held industrial disputes would not arise. Every experience shows this to be wholly fallacious. There are hundreds of practical problems associated with balloting. Those hon. Members do not take into account the experience, the rules and the traditions of some of our trade unions. To adopt a legislative formula, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and some of his hon. Friends propose, would be the worst of all worlds.
It has amazed some of my hon. Friends and me that the House should be debating this new clause, the principal sponsor of which is the hon. Member for Winchester. The hon. Member was a member of the Standing Committee. We spent 10 hours in Committee debating clause 1 and the general principle of ballots. The hon. Gentleman did not seek to introduce the new clause at that time. There is no reason why he should have done so. It is sometimes better to wait until the Bill reaches the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman made no mention of his proposal in Committee.
Listening to the speeches of some hon. Members, I am at a loss to understand their practical experience of trade union affairs. I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that hon. Members do not have the right to take part in debates on industrial relations. I might wish to comment from time to time about such matters as banking. I understand, however, that the hon. Member for Winchester is a banker and a soldier of some distinction. I am not aware that he has worked on the shop floor. I do not think that he is a member of any trade union or that he understands the principles of trade unions.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), according to The Times Guide to the House of Commons, is a senior buyer of foodstuffs. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had experience of individual trade unions. If so, he will no doubt intervene and say so. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) does not represent Dartford, but I give way to him.

Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Gentleman is introducing a novel principle in the conduct of the affairs of the House that only direct personal experience qualifies hon. Members to speak on subjects. That is a very revolutionary principle.

Mr. Varley: I would not suggest anythink like that. I recognise that members of the legal profession sometimes look a bit sideways when some of my hon. Friends speak about that profession and suggest that they should not intervene, but the House always listens more seriously to individuals if they have practical experience.
The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), again according to The Times Guide to the House of Commons, listing the background of Members of Parliament, is a wine merchant and a chartered accountant. I do not know what is his practical experience of trade unions. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), who I see in his place, is a farmer, a landowner, a company director and a public house licensee.

Mr. Colvin: Would the right hon. Gentleman deny me the right to state an opinion on an Abortion Bill?

Mr. Varley: Of course not. I say, I think for the sixth time, that I do not seek to suggest that hon. Members should be denied an opportunity to speak. I merely wish to assess the value of the contributions they make.
I need not go through the list of speeches made on the Government side, but hon. Members supporting the Secretary of State have some practical experience of industrial relations. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who made a forceful speech, has some experience of industrial relations as a personnel officer. The hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) has practical experience of industrial relations. Both are totally opposed to what the hon. Member for Winchester and his hon. Friends wish to do.
People with practical experience on both sides of the House counsel caution about moving down the road which leads to mandatory ballots. If the numbers are set as low as 15 per cent. or 500, that means mandatory ballots, with all their difficulties.

Mr. John Browne: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of practical experience. He is talking about practical experience of one of the most chaotic countries in the world in terms of industrial relations.

Mr. Varley: That emphasises what I was saying.
The Minister of State, Lord Gowrie, gave evidence to a Committee in which he admitted, under close questioning, that the strike record in Britain is not that bad compared with other industrial countries. Industrial relations always deteriorate under Conservative Governments. One can trace the figures back to 1945. Twice as many days are always lost through industrial disputes under Conservative Governments as under Labour Governments.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the reasons why industrial relations deteriorate under Conservative Governments is the political use of power by trade union leadership?

Mr. Varley: It is not a question of that. There is always a steady deterioration under Conservative Governments.
The House is anxious to listen to the Secretary of State and to come to a decision, so I shall issue one final word of warning. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) threatened the Secretary of State. He said that if the Secretary of State did not indicate that the proposition will be included in the Green Paper there would be mass hostility and a mass vote against the Government in favour of the new clause. That is no way to behave towards the Secretary of State for Employment. The hon. Member said that the Secretary of State could go through the consultative process provided that he gave a guarantee that such a proposal would be included.
The new clause is nonsense. I suspect that the Secretary of State and his colleagues also regard it as nonsense. Those with experience in industrial relations on the. Government side say that it is nonsense. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will state that the new clause cannot be accepted. If necessary, we shall vote with him in the Lobby this evening.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): We have had a long, interesting and good humoured debate. A number of important issues have been raised. I shall try to put some of the serious problems in perspective in relation to what we seek to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) quoted an Ancient and Modern hymn at me. I shall quote another—
Lead, kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom".
I am not sure that the gloom has been lifted entirely from my presence by some of the speeches from behind me. However, I shall do my best to shed as much light as possible.
I begin by shedding a little light on the famous resolution supposedly passed by Conservative trade unions at their annual conference. I was there. The resolution stated:
This conference, recognising that the 40 per cent. of trade unionists who voted Conservative at the last election did so in earnest support for the manifesto's commitment to trade union reforms, urges Her Majesty's Government to implement those reforms at the earliest possible time. This conference further urges Her Majesty's Government to pay particular attention to the law relating to the use of secret ballots and not to be intimidated by the bluster of largely unrepresentative trade union leaders.
That gives a slightly different impression from that given in the letter by Mr. Gale.
It is always useful to reread a manifesto and remind oneself of what was said a year ago. The manifesto states:
Wider use of secret ballots for decisionmaking throughout the trade union movement should be given every encouragement. We will therefore provide public funds for postal ballots for union elections and other important issues. Every trade unionist should be free to record his decisions as every voter has done for a hundred years in parliamentary elections without others watching and taking note.
That is reasonable.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend explain how every trade unionist can be free to record his decision if the process by which every trade unionist is so free is decided according to the customs of individual trade unions?

Mr. Prior: I have always hoped, after much consideration, that by the use of voluntary means and the Government pro-

viding cash for postal ballots, and as a result of the pressure for the holding of secret ballots, that will happen for all trade unionists. Great improvements have been made in the last year or so and we should not believe from the fact that it has not happened yet that the aim in the manifesto will not be achieved by the end of this Parliament. I believe that it can be achieved.
We attach great importance to secret ballots for a variety of purposes, but undoubtedly for the election of union officers at national level. As in other countries, in Britain strong moderate leaders, elected by, and therefore supported by, the broad base of their members, are the surest means of achieving both national and trade union success.
After long and anxious consideration, we decided some time ago—and we have been examining the issue for a number of years—that the most likely means of achieving our aims, which are so widely shared, is by encouragement and the provision of funds rather than by compulsion. The importance of that—and it is amply borne out by the TUC's attitude—is that no one can reasonably accuse us of meddling in union affairs. It provided a basis for those who wanted to use the money for secret ballots to take it without feeling that they were letting down their colleagues.
Considerable pressure is being exerted within the TUC to dissuade unions from taking the cash. Some unions are resisting that; and where some lead others will follow. I do not believe that that would have happened if we had moved to compulsion.
I stress, therefore, that our primary purpose is to get unions to elect their national leaders by means of secret ballot—probably postal. That in itself will do more to reform industrial relations than anything else that we are likely to do in this Parliament. That is where our main thought and effort should be directed. We hear much in modern times about appealing to the shop floor—the rank and file or average trade unionist—over the heads of union leaders. We all know the reasons why and I think that we should all recognise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), that it is not a satisfactory state of affairs to deliberately undermine the authority of leaders.
7.30 pm
That can lead to greater extremism, to more thrashing about and, at the end of the day, to anarchy. The movement towards secret ballots is growing. In the pragmatic and conservative way of approaching problems of industrial relations I urge my hon. Friends to allow it to proceed.
I believe that there is an important—perhaps fundamental—change taking place. It is not easy to fathom when one is in the middle of it and one cannot predict the outcome. Change in trade union structure is a topic of great conversation. The shop floor is no longer to be relied upon meekly to follow the lead, on which they have had no say, from leaders to whom they do not feel committed.
Hon. Friends have told me and the House that they believe that the tide is flowing strongly in our direction and strongly in the direction of need for change. I accept that. My task is to advise the House and the country on how best to aid change, and to interpret what is going on. My instinctive reaction is to say that when things are starting to move on their own we should let the process continue.
The British are jealous of their past. They are great guardians of what they see as hard gained rights. As many of us learned in the Services—including my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)—volunteers for a job are generally better than those pressed. Sometimes, therefore, I find myself in the middle of the argument between those who say that nothing can be done—which is, I think, what many Opposition Members have been saying—and some of my hon. Friends who urge me to do more.
However, the argument is raging and it is a healthy one. The argument is much less sterile than those of the last few years. It is possible for the great majority of responsible men and women—many of them trade unionists—to see that we are, painstakingly and with great effort, seeking policies which are balanced and fair. Even those who disagree with us politically are able to support our general approach. Those on the shop floor who agree with us, and who in some cases are anxious for us to go further and do more, have no difficulty in defending our approach against their critics.
People in industry whose opinion I respect tell me that the attitude among management and workers to allow and make this Bill work is far greater than in 1971. This is important and it is against that background that I come to discuss the detailed clauses put forward by my hon. Friends.
Let me say again, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the underlying principle of these clauses will give the power of referendum to people on the shop floor. That is what it is all about. In many ways in a democracy it is a reasonable thing to do. That power would be given and at the same time as those on the shop took that power they would be taking power away from trade union leaders.
I must say that it is partly because the country—this is a widely held view—does not believe that the trade union leaders often represent the true views of the shop floor that this kind of movement has grown over the last few years. I think that that makes out the case and that is why we came to this conclusion after much consideration.
The use of the secret ballot for election to trade union office is important. It is important at national level and much more important, perhaps, in secret ballots on the premises and in employers' time.
I do not propose to seek to shoot down these clauses on technical grounds. Very often as a frustrated Back Bencher I have listened to Ministers shooting down badly drafted amendments. It is not easy to draft amendments and generally it is even harder to understand them when they are put into proper form. But it is easy to understand the principle which underlies the views of my hon. Friends in these new clauses.
It is very important, however, for me to indicate some of the very profound difficulties which would arise from the new clauses in practice, and I emphasise "in practice".
The House will not expect me to give a detailed analysis of each of the clauses, and the numerous technical and practical difficulties to which each gives rise. I will, however, mention three general problems which in my view none of the new clauses manages successfully to overcome.
First, none of the clauses deals satisfactorily with the problem of unofficial action—regrettably the most prevalent form of industrial action in Britain. New clauses 2, 3 and 5, in the names, respectively, of my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford, Winchester and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) ignore the question altogether. The result is that unofficial action would continue to be lawful without a ballot being required and enjoy the protection of the immunities in TULRA. In fact, the effect of these clauses might well be to increase unofficial industrial action.
At present unions seek in some cases to gain control of unofficial strikes by making them official but this would not be at all an attractive course if the effect were to make it fall foul of the requirements of this clause. The same objection applies in respect of new clause 4.
New clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester clearly recognises this difficulty and makes a valiant attempt to deal with it. It does so, however, by seeking to provide that even unofficial groups are to be regarded for the purposes of the clause as though they were trade unions. The effect of this is again perverse.
So my hon. Friend is getting away from unofficial action and is saying that if they are unofficial groups—not supported by the union but unofficial groups within the works or within the union—they would be treated as though they were trade unions.
The effect of this is again perverse. It would give a respectability and status to unofficial groups which can win immunity for unofficial strike action by conducting a successful ballot which we should be straining in other respects to deny them. They are, indeed, put into a valid negotiating relationship with the employer because the clause requires the question to be asked in their ballot to be agreed with him.
In other words, the employer in those circumstances could find himself in the impossible position—which happened to British Leyland a few years ago—of being unable to negotiate with the unofficial group which has the power and of negotiating with the official group which has no power. What could happen on

such occasions is that the employers could either be faced with negotiating with an unofficial group because that group had the requisite 15 per cent. and was in a position to demand that the employers help them with the ballot or negotiating with an unofficial group.
The second general problem which arises on all the clauses is the weapon they would place—unintentionally, I am sure—in the hands of militants to use in order to embarrass a responsible union leadership. New clauses 4 and 5 would enable a minority to trigger a ballot even where the union had no intention of taking strike action.
Thus, the union leadership may be doing everything my hon. Friends would desire; negotiating a realistic settlement in difficult circumstances. Yet under these clauses the militants have only to get a small minority of dissatisfied members to ask for a ballot, and one is then foisted on the leadership. Can one imagine a better way of undermining responsible leadership than that?
New clauses 2, 3 and 6 seek to avoid this problem but, in my view, unsuccessfully. New clauses 2 and 3 would provide militants with an argument to persuading members not to follow official union procedures. After all, why do so if the union may be hamstrung by the need to organise and conduct a ballot and perhaps even be deprived of its immunity?
New clause 6 will, as I have said, provide groups of militant workers with a number of ways in which to elevate their status and secure ballots which a moderate leadership would not want at a sensitive point in negotiations. For example, an unofficial group of members in a union may call upon the membership of the union in a major firm to strike knowing that it could then muster 15 per cent. of such members to pull the trigger for a ballot. This would give it a locus to hold a ballot and/or put pressure on the union officially to conduct one. The flexibility which recent experience tells us it is often important to leave in the hands of the negotiators would be seriously jeopardised. I draw attention to the way that a recent ballot was conducted by the craft unions at British Leyland and how that was dealt with.
Thirdly, none of the clauses, despite the brave effort of my hon. Friend the


Member for Bristol, North-West, avoids the difficult problems inherent in the question of trade union immunities. Four of them—new clauses 2, 3, 4 and 6—specifically remove the section 13 and/or section 14 immunities from industrial action taken before a ballot or in defiance of the result of the ballot.
The fifth—new clause 5—does not mention immunities and clearly provides that, once the ballot is taken, the union is not bound by the outcome, even if the majority is against industrial action.
My hon Friend today, in effect, seems to be proposing that the clause is not requiring or putting any obligation on the union to hold a ballot. If that is his reading of it, it is a thoroughly bad principle, by statute, to impose obligations on people without providing for their enforcement. If that is what he wants, the place for it is in a code of practice, not in statute law. If he is not to put any sanction on the demanding of the 5 per cent., that will be the effect of the new clause. Therefore, I believe that would be better dealt with by a code of practice than by any other way.

Mr. Colvin: Not putting penalties or obligations on the union would still enable the ballot to take place. Once the ballot has taken place, the union is under no obligation to carry out the instructions of the ballot. But, if the ballot does not take place, the requisitionists or those requiring the ballot to take place, could engineer the ballot and apply to the certification officer for the funds and the names from the register so that they could conduct the ballot. The ballot would still take place, but there would be no obligation on the union to carry out the instructions of the ballot.

Mr. Prior: I now see what my hon. Friend is getting at, and I think that it has some merit. He is trying to create, as it were, the atmosphere for more secret ballots in which more secret ballots can take place. If there is no sanction as a result of a union refusing to take part in a ballot or having to take any action as a result of a ballot—if the members vote one way and the union goes the other way—there will be some difficulty. I think that what my hon. Friend has now said

requires further consideration, as I am sure he will agree.
7.45 pm
I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that these objections to their new clauses are not merely drafting points; they go to the whole problem of the difficulties of trying to move for compulsion in this area. They represent practical effects with far-reaching consequences. It is not something that good will between now and the Bill going to the other place can put right. It is inherent in the character of the problem.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and Bristol, North-West put considerable pressure behind the fact that what they were seeking to do was very much along the lines of what was in company law—that Parliament has intervened in the running of companies by giving rights to shareholders in one way or another to give effect to their wishes—and that is what we should be seeking to do in these measures. The problem is that that has been going on in company law for many years. The provision to which my hon. Friends have referred dates back to the Companies Clauses (Consolidation) Act 1845, so a tradition has been built up. I do not think it wise to regard that analogy as an assurance that in one step an equivalent provision either should or could be brought into trade union law. We ignore historical differences at our peril—something of which Tories are always well aware. Therefore, I do not believe that is a route down which we should go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, in a radio interview yesterday, said:
the more, of course, one looks into the question of secret ballots, the more complex it appears.
I hope that I have been able to give some indication that those are the real problems that we see. The fact that we have had five new clauses with important differences of principle, emphasis and effect between them illustrates the complexity of the subject.
Some of the clauses show that my hon. Friends recognised the difficulties in the earlier clauses and sought to cater for them in their own drafting. But, as each attempt was made to plug the hole in the one before, still more appeared. The truth


is that the difficulties inherent in the whole concept of legally-imposed ballots are much more fundamental than mere draftsmanship can resolve.
If genuine union democracy could readily be imposed by legislation in this way I should be the first to propose it, because I believe that is the stage that we must reach. But these new clauses show that there is a great deal more to it than that. We need not only effective union democracy, but responsible union leadership. We need to curb, not to increase, unofficial action. We need to weaken destructive elements in the union movement, not to give them further means by which to create trouble. It is not easy to reconcile these objectives with mechanisms imposed through legal requirements.
After all, this approach is by no means at odds with our approach to other questions of industry. Just as it is greatly preferable for firms to develop their own forms of employee involvement than to have one structure imposed on them by law, so it is a mistake to believe that union democracy and accountability can readily be secured by imposing rigid procedures on unions by law. In both cases it is better to encourage voluntary development than to attempt to impose it.
At the start of my speech I set out the general position of the Government towards secret balloting. I have tried to show my hon. Friends some of the pitfalls in the way that they seek to legislate and the need to approach this extension of shop floor power and democracy with caution. I cannot stress too strongly that, having lived with this problem for a number of years, we have over those years earnestly sought to overcome these difficulties and to find a principle which would be acceptable and would work.
I sense that there is a deeply felt instinct in the country that what I propose may not be enough. I do not think that we, in this House, do ourselves any good if we do not accept that. I am fully aware that many of my hon. Friends feel deeply and sincerely that more, somehow, has to be done. There have been too many examples in recent years of people who have lost their jobs, or who have felt in some way or another that

they were forced to strike, much against their will, and without having any chance to express their wishes. The House has to accept that view. There may be sharp differences between the ways in which we may seek to solve the problems, but we must not underestimate the very strong feeling in the country about that subject.
Much of the discussion has been centred around the need for some sanction if the trigger is not pulled. That has taken us into the whole area of withdrawal of immunity. I know that this is not a Government-imposed ballot. Of course I understand the principle behind my hon. Friends' actions. However, I still feel and fear that going down that compulsory route in that way, and using the withdrawal of immunities as a means to create the sanction that will be necessary, would land us in a great deal of difficulty.
We are to have a Green Paper later this year. Its main purpose is to discuss the thorny problem of trade union immunities. But it cannot do so in isolation from the problems of secret balloting. For instance, there is the question whether, as these new clauses suggest, there should be no immunity for industrial action unless a secret ballot has been held by the work force concerned, and it supports the action. I assure my hon. Friends, and I give them this undertaking, that all these matters will be relevant. From an open and informed debate we can decide how then to proceed. I believe that that is the correct approach—it gives us a chance to see how the present proposals are accepted. It is, as I have outlined, in keeping with our general philosophy, and what we have preached for a number of years.
The industrial relations scene is not a static one—it has changing moods as it ebbs and flows. It is dangerous to predict what will be the general mood in a few months' time. The step by step approach—and I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) who asked me a specific question—does not rule out further legislation. It is implicit in any approach which seeks to build on solid progress. We have to show that our legislation, far from seeking to clobber effective and necessary trade unionism, is designed to improve the standard of living, the


wealth, and the productivity of all our people. That is why we are here. That is why we are debating the subject today.
If we advance in that way, we shall continue to carry the consent of people with us, and the bitterness, sterility, and bankruptcy of the debate of the last few years, which has dragged down this country, will be put behind us. I urge my hon. Friends to have steadiness, and to have understanding of what we are seeking to do. I share their anxieties and their hopes. I ask them, in return, to share mine.

Mr. Gorst: There are answers to all the difficulties that my right hon. Friend has put forward. May I remind him that we were elected on Tory votes to achieve trade union reform, not to resist it on Labour votes?

Mr. Prior: I believe that more trade unionists voted for our party at the last election than at any time since the war. Those trade unionists want to see changes made. That is what is incorporated in the Employment Bill. I know that some people are saying that my approach is "softly, softly"—I know all the other expressions that they use—but I believe that this is a matter that is now very important, not only for the future of industrial relations, but for the whole future of our democracy and our Parliament.
There are many hon. Members who have been in the House over the past few years and have seen the struggles between one side or the other on industrial relations matters. None of us has got it right. Yet the country continues to suffer and the standard of living of our people declines. We have to do better than that. We can do better than that, but we must do it in a reasonable and steady manner—

Mr. George Gardiner: rose—

Mr. Prior: I must continue. I believe that the approach that we are adopting, although it does not go as far as some of my hon. Friends would wish me to go—the consultations that we have had, the incorporation in the Bill of the main proposals that were in the manifesto, the further feeling now that there should be a Green Paper for further consultation on these matters—is the right approach for the Government and for the country.

I believe that all those trade unionists who voted Conservative—or most of them—actually want to see us somewhere in the middle, in a balanced position. That is what they want.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Prior: I shall give way to my non. Friend the Member for Reigate, but he is the last.

Mr. George Gardiner: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he appreciates that this matter is at the core of the problem. Will he clarify a little further the status of the proposed Green Paper to which he referred? The last two consultative documents that he issued were issued with the intention of legislating. Is it fair to assume that the Green Paper that he intends to issue later this year is issued also with the intention of working out some appropriate legislation?

Mr. Prior: I must make the matter perfectly clear to my hon. Friend. I wish desperately to carry him and the party with me, but I cannot do it at the expense of misleading him in any way on the subject. I would never dream of doing that. I wish to make it absolutely plain that the consultative documents that we have published over a period of months during the preparation of the Bill arose out of direct commitments in the manifesto. Since that time there has been the whole question of immunities, for example, Express Newspapers v. Mac-Shane. Because there was an implied commitment in the manifesto that we would review immunities, and that we would take whatever action we thought was necessary, there was consultation which led to the new clause that we debated last week.
The Green Paper is a paper for consultation. It does not commit the party or the Government to any particular form of legislation. I must make that point clear. I believe that there will have to be further legislation at some time. I do not think that we should shrink from legislation. However, I would not wish to mislead my hon. Friend in any way in what I have told him tonight.
It has been a long afternoon for someone who has sat through every speech. But I believe that we are on the right lines. I urge my colleagues to give me


the majority and the support which the Government need to carry through their policies. These matters have never been easy. I believe that the tide is flowing in our direction, and I want it to continue that way. I hope that, in the spirit of what I have said, my hon. Friends will not seek to press their new clauses.

Mr. John Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for a generous, honourable and extremely persuasive speech, in which he correctly stressed the complexities of the subject of the secret ballot. They are complexities which I have never hesitated to stress. That is why I believe that new clause 3 is so essential. As I said, it is a mouse of a clause compared with a mandatory secret ballot. By enacting

it, we would see the problems in practice instead of just being cautious about theory. We would be able to be more certain in our substantive legislation later as a result of having seen ballots in practice.

I heard with gladness my right hon. Friend's sense of direction with regard to secret ballots, and I thank him for that. But I am afraid that I listened in vain for the commitment in principle which we are seeking, and it is, therefore, with regret that we shall force a Division on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 491.

Division No. 259]
AYES
[8 pm


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neale, Gerrard


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fry, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rost, Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)


Brinton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Howells, Geraint
Temple-Morris, Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lawrence, Ivan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Budgen, Nick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Butcher, John
Loveridge, John
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Marland, Paul
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Churchill, W. S.
Marlow, Tony
Ward, John


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
Montgomery, Fergus



Colvin, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Cranborne, Viscount
Murphy, Christopher
Mr. George Gardiner and


Dickens, Geoffrey
Myles, David
Mr. John Gorst.


Dover, Denshore




NOES


Abse, Leo
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Paul


Adams, Allen
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Chapman, Sydney


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Andrew
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clegg, Sir Walter


Allaun, Frank
Bradford, Rev R.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Ancram, Michael
Bradley, Tom
Cohen, Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Braine, Sir Bernard
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Bright, Graham
Cook, Robin F.


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Leon
Cope, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cormack, Patrick


Ashton, Joe
Brooke, Hon Peter
Corrie, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cowans, Horry


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Crouch, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Buchan, Norman
Crowther, J. S.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buck, Antony
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bulmer, Esmond
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Hon Adam
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Dalyell, Tam


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davidson, Arthur


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Best, Keith
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Canavan, Dennis
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cant, R. B.
Deakins, Eric


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Body, Richard
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dempsey, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cartwright, John
Dewar, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Dixon, Donald




Dobson, Frank
Haynes, Frank
Marshall, David (G[...]sgow, Shettles'n)


Dormand, Jack
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dorrell, Stephen
Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Douglas, Dick
Henderson, Barry
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hicks, Robert
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunlop, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Mates, Michael


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mather, Carol


Dunnett, Jack
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Home Robertson, John
Mawby, Ray


Durant, Tony
Homewood, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dykes, Hugh
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Patrick


Eadie, Alex
Hooson, Tom
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Horam, John
Meacher, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Mellor, David


Eggar, Timothy
Huckfield, Les
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Elliott, Sir William
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Mikardo, Ian


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Evans, John (Newton)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman


Ewing, Harry
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Eyre, Reginald
Janner, Hon Greville
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Moate, Roger


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Molyneaux, James


Faulds, Andrew
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector


Fell, Anthony
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Moore, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Field, Frank
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Fitt, Gerard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Morton, George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kerr, Russell
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kilfedder, James A.
Needham, Richard


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Ford, Ben
King, Rt Hon Tom
Neubert, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Kinnock, Nell
Newens, Stanley


Forrester, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Newton, Tony


Foster, Derek
Lamborn, Harry



Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lamond, James
Normanton, Tom


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lamont, Norman
Nott, Rt Hon John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Lang, Ian
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lawson, Nigel
Ogden, Eric


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lee, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Freud, Clement
Leighton, Ronald
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Onslow, Cranley


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


George, Bruce
Litherland, Robert
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Ginsburg, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Palmer, Arthur


Glyn, Dr Alan
Luce, Richard
Park, George


Golding, John
Lyell, Nicholas
Parker, John


Goodhart, Philip
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Parkinson, Cecil


Goodlad, Alastair
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Parris, Matthew


Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Parry, Robert


Gow, Ian
McCartney, Hugh
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gower, Sir Raymond
McCusker, H.
Patten, John (Oxford)


Graham, Ted
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pattie, Geoffrey


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank
Pawsey, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Macfarlane, Neil
Pendry, Tom


Gray, Hamish
MacGregor, John
Percival, Sir Ian


Greenway, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Grist, Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Pink, R. Bonner


Grylls, Michael
McKelvey, William
Pollock, Alexander


Gummer, John Selwyn
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Porter, George


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Maclennan, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMahon, Andrew
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Prescott, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McNally, Thomas
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
McNamara, Kevin
Prior, Rt Hon James


Haselhurst, Alan
McQuarrie, Albert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hastings, Stephen
McWilliam, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Madel, David
Race, Reg


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Major, John
Radice, Giles


Hayhoe, Barney
Marks, Kenneth
Raison, Timothy




Rathbone, Tim
Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim
Snape, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Soley, Clive
Waddington, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spearing, Nigel
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Richardson, Jo
Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Speller Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridsdale, Julian
Spence, John
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Sproat, lain
Watson, John


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Squire, Robin
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stanley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony
Welsh, Michael


Robertson, George
Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Stoddart, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rooker, J. W.
Stokes, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Roper, John
Stott, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitlock, William


Ross, Stephen (isle of Wight)
Strang, Gavin
Whitney, Raymond


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Straw, Jack
Wickenden, Keith


Rossi, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wiggin, Jerry


Royle, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryman, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Sandelson, Neville
Tebbit, Norman
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sever, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Winnick, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Woodall. Alec


Sheerman, Barry
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Thompson, Donald
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wright, Sheila


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Shersby, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Tilley, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Short, Mrs Renée
Tinn, James



Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Julius
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Silvester, Fred
Trippier, David
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AS TO RECOGNISED TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

'(1) Where a claim is duly reported to the Secretary of State under this section—

(a) that terms or conditions of employment are established in any trade or industry, or section of a trade or industry, either generally or in any district, which have been settled by an agreement or award, and
(b) that the parties to the agreement, or to the proceedings in which the award was made, are or represent organisations of employers and organisations of workers or associations of such organisations, and represent (generally or in the district in question, as the case may be) a substantial proportion of the employers and of the workers in the trade, industry or section, being workers of the description (hereinafter referred to as "the relevant description") to which the agreement or award relates, and
(c) that as respects any worker of the relevant description an employer engaged in the trade, industry or section (or, where the operation of the agreement or award is limited to a district, an employer so engaged in that district), whether represented as afore-

saud or not, is not observing the terms or conditions (hereinafter referred to as "the recognised terms or conditions "),

the Secretary of State may take any steps which seem to him expedient to settle, or to secure the use of appropriate machinery to settle, the claim and shall, if the claim is not otherwise settled, refer it to the Central Arbitration Committee.
Provided that:

(i) no claim shall be reported under this section as respects workers whose remuneration or minimum remuneration is fixed (otherwise than by the employer, with or without the approval of any other person) in pursuance of any enactment other than this section or in the case of whom provision is made by or under any enactment other than this section for the settlement of questions as to remuneration or minimum remuneration;
(ii) no claim shall be reported under this section as respects terms or conditions fixed as aforesaid.

(2) For the purposes of this section a claim, to be duly reported, must be reported to the Minister in writing by an independent trade union.
(3) If on a reference under this section the Committee is satisfied that the claim is well founded, then unless the Court is satisfied that the terms or conditions which the employer


is observing are not less favourable than the recognised terms or conditions the Court shall make an award requiring the employer to observe the recognised terms or conditions as respects all workers of the relevant description from time to time employed by him.
(4) An award under this section shall have effect as an implied term of the contract of employment, and shall have effect from such date as the Committee Court may determine, being a date not earlier than the date on which, in the opinion of the Committee the employer was first informed of the claim giving rise to the award by the organisation or association which reported the claim to the Minister; and an award under this section shall cease to have effect on the coming into operation of an agreement or award varying or abrogating the recognised terms or conditions.'.—[Mr. John Grant.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. John Grant: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this we may take new clause 12—Amendment of Schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975:
'At the end of paragraph 9 of Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 there shall be inserted the words: "but regard shall not be had to the size and administration resources of the employer's undertaking.
and amendment No. 106, in clause 17, page 18, leave out lines 35 to 38.

Mr. Grant: We have just concluded a prolonged, and, in many ways, somewhat irrelevant debate which has been far less concerned with industrial relations than with the internal dissensions on the Conservative Benches. It was almost an intrusion into private grief for my right hon. and hon. Friends to intervene in that debate. If it had any relevance to the serious matter of industrial relations, it was to demonstrate the naivety and mischievousness of Conservative Members, who are less concerned with industrial peace and harmony than with the grasping of any stick with which to beat the trade unions—or, as it seems currently, with which to beat the Secretary of State. Their abortive mini-rebellion will doubtless attract the headlines tomorrow. That is a pity, because it will be at the expense of the real issue.
8.15 pm
These new clauses and the amendment bear directly on the life, pay and conditions of hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers, whose position will be

markedly worsened unless the Government make concessions, rather than on the basis of an abstract theory.
I shall argue my case not on the basis of the two new clauses but primarily on amendment No. 106. The new clauses provide a fall-back position. New clause 9 takes us back to the position that existed under the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, but there are some drafting errors in the new clause. New clause 12 is an attempt to clarify a problem that caused a clash of view and certainly a difference of interpretation in Committee.
I shall concentrate on amendment No. 106 which gives the status quo that Labour Members desire. The Bill hits severely at the statutory rights of individual workers, especially at the lower paid and at the most vulnerable, particularly in respect of unfair dismissals, maternity benefits, and in respect of schedule 11. The repeal of schedule 11 appears to be a rather spiteful, if inexplicable, attempt by the Government to hammer away at individual workers' rights. I said "inexplicable", but, as we progress, I shall try to explain why I believe the Government are travelling this particular road.
The Secretary of State is clearly unhappy about the total repeal of the schedule. He was not happy on Second Reading or at the end of the Committee proceedings. After much pressure, and after the total demolition of the flimsy brief that was presented by his hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary—I suspect that there is some difference between their presentations of the case—he admitted that the decision regarding the recognised terms and conditions provisions was one of the most difficult in the Bill. The Opposition were not alone in urging reconsideration. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham)—he is not in the Chamber now but I hope that he will join us later to make another contribution—urged reconsideration. I know that other Conservative Members have similar doubts and anxieties about this aspect of the Bill.
The Secretary of State said that he had been impressed by the arguments advanced. He mentioned the building trades' employers, who had urged him to retain the first leg of the schedule. He


said that he would consider further representations. He gave no undertaking. Indeed, he said that he would give consideration to further representations while maintaining the position that the Government still wanted total abolition. We recognise that in this respect his hands are tied. Undoubtedly a collective decision was taken.
It was not easy for the right hon. Gentleman to publicise his decision to invite further representations. I know that he wrote to the TUC, the CBI and other interested organisations. It will be helpful if he tells us about the further representations that he has received. I am aware that he limited further representations until Tuesday of next week, so time has not yet run out. I am sure that by now he has a fair impression of the way in which the situation is developing.
A number of unions have submitted new pleas in asking for the retention of the schedule. I shall not quote them at length, but I shall refer to two or three of the new pleas that have been entered. I have one from the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers. It is a copy of the document that was sent to the right hon. Gentleman. That union states:
On behalf of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, may I urge you most strongly not to alter the recognition terms … as this would have disruptive effects on NJICs and other negotiating bodies, but to maintain the recognition levels at the present figures.
I am sure this would find the support of the employers' organisations concerned and I cannot stress too strongly that any alteration upwards would in our opinion be disruptive in industrial terms.
There is a similar letter from the general secretary of the National Union of Footwear, Leather and Allied Trades. There is a letter in a similar vein from the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union. The general secretary of that organisation states:
the abolition … will do nothing to improve the economy of the country or industrial relations. On the contrary the proposed change will lead to conflict and confrontation in our industry.
The employment and policy committee of the TUC has approved a further letter, which I think the Secretary of State will have received today. It makes it clear that it wishes to maintain the representations that it made previously. It seeks, in par-

ticular the retention of the schedule. It is especially concerned about the potential repeal of the first leg. It will be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary of State gives the House rather more detail about the further representations that they have received. Employer organisations may well have been making similar noises in the past week or two.
The new clauses give the House an opportunity to examine in detail the case for and against abolition. I shall not seek to go over all the ground that I covered in Committee in a long speech. We have already discussed consultation and consultative documents.
The so-called consultative document on the issue that is now before us was phoney. The Government gave three options in that document. They suggested total repeal, repeal of the general level provisions and the amendment of the schedule. There was also reference to the fair wages resolution. The plain fact is that the decision had, in effect, been taken. It must have been, because there has been virtually no subsequent support for total abolition. However, following the consultation, that is precisely what is being suggested. It seems that there is a wish to scrap the lot.
Whatever may have been said about its past usage, the schedule is aimed primarily at protecting the low paid. It has been used primarily for that purpose. The Government's decision to get rid of it is nothing short of a declaration that they do not give a damn for the lowest paid, the poorest workers who are often the most poorly organised and the most vulnerable. The change is being proposed after a mere three years' experience of the schedule. That is not a long period in which to take such a fundamental decision.
In Committee we went into a great deal of detail about the various researches that have been conducted, especially by the University of Warwick industrial relations research unit, including an up-to-date analysis of the effect of schedule 11 for the three years from 1977 to 1979. The broad conclusion of that piece of research by those independent analysts was that schedule 11 had been helping to remove pockets of low pay. They pointed out that the abolition of the schedule


could exclude significant numbers of employees from the only statutory protection that they have.
The Under-Secretary of State has chosen to quote selectively the findings of the Low Pay Unit when it has suited his case to do so. The unit takes the same view as the University of Warwick unit. It believes that abolition will show a lack of commitment by the Goverment towards the low paid. How right it is. The Government argue that schedule 11 has been used to circumvent pay policy. That is rather odd because they do not have one now. In the past the right hon. Gentleman has expressed considerable interest in that concept. He has now ratted on it. He talks, for example, of self-restaint being enough. We cannot expect him to fight on every front. We have already seen his difficulties this evening. No doubt his time on that issue will come again.
As there is now no overt pay policy for the schedule to circumvent, the question is "Why not give it a run? Why not test it to ascertain the full extent to which it can help tackle the problem of low pay?" It is a problem that is accentuated by cowboy employers undercutting recognised rates. It is a problem that is accentuated still further by a range of Government economic and social policies, especially those flowing from the Treasury.
8.30 pm
The Government claim that the schedule has damaged industrial relations by undermining pay structures and upsetting relativities. They also complain that it has not allowed the Central Arbitration Committee to consider market prospects, profitability and so on. In Committee we had a considerable different of opinion about this. The Warwick university unit carried out an extensive survey and found no evidence for any of these claims. Its independent evidence completely destroys the Government's case.
The evidence is that the schedule has helped industrial relations. Moreover, on the question of profitability, the unit says that the Central Arbitration Committee looks at issues of profitability in reaching its decisions. New Clause 12 seeks to some extent to clarify that position.
The Government probably will not like new clause 12 and perhaps will want to make an alteration of their own to the Bill in that respect. There is no doubt about the position of the Central Arbitration Committee on this. If there were any doubt, the TUC in its latest submission to the Secretary of State, in response to his letter which particularly refers to ability to pay and productivity, makes clear that the CAC looks at these matters when making its decisions. The TUC and many individual unions take the view that without this resort to unilateral arbitration much more use will be made of industrial action, and that there will be many more strikes. Many employers share that view.
There is a strong feeling, too, that, even where it is not used, schedule 11 has helped to develop collective bargaining because the prospect of its use has brought employers to the bargaining table, and that that has been a helpful development. Many of the employers organisations—certainly the Engineering Employers' Federation—deplore the abolition of the recognised terms and conditions provisions. The British Institute of Management would like to see the general provision go, but not the rest. The CBI is divided, but does not favour full-scale repeal. Unless they have a belated change of heart, which I do not think is possible, the building employers, the furniture trade employers and the motor agents have all been against full repeal, as have the TUC and many affiliated unions, the Low Pay Unit and Warwick university. There is a great weight of evidence in that direction.
Only last week Camden community relations council lobbied on the Bill, in particular on the point about schedule 11. It was worried about the position of many London workers in ethnic minority groups working in low pay industries such as hotels, catering and the garment trades, if this protection is removed. The council wants discussions to improve the schedule's scope and does not want to get rid of it. That view is shared by the Low Pay Unit which believes that the schedule could be improved.
If we go up this road we shall be turning the clock back 40 years or more, to the 1930s and beyond. Those who


are not working on Government contracts will be unable to claim fair wages with minimum standards. Bad employers will be able to undercut with impunity and good employers will suffer competitive disadvantage. It is a "back to the sweat shop" approach.
I mentioned Government contracts. The consultative document implies that the fair wages resolution may go, too, in due course as a follow-up to this legislation, so that the Government would cease to set even that limited example. I ask for a reply tonight. What is intended? Shall we see the end of the fair wages resolution as well? That question was asked in Committee but no response was received.
It would be idle to pretend that some higher-paid groups did not benefit from the schedule during a pay policy period when the schedule was a useful safety valve. Claims under the schedule were deliberately exempted from the pay policy. It may well be argued that that should not be allowed to happen; that it should not be a benefit, especially to high-paid workers. If that is so, it is a case at the most for amendment, not for abolition, just like the argument about whether the CAC considers that profitability could also be dealt with without striking out the schedule. The argument about profitability needs to be treated with considerable caution. I would not want to encourage the CAC to adopt widely differing standards in dealing with cases. The answer here again is that discussion, and perhaps some form of amendment to the schedule, would be the best way out.
I want to mention briefly the repeal of the Road Haulage Wages Act. That change looks to me like a piece of spite against the Transport and General Workers Union. The consultative document gave no reasons for that abolition, and the Secretary of State gave an unsatisfactory explanation in Committee. When he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) with a first-class example of where there is need to retain the Act, he said he would take up the point later. He has not yet done so and perhaps he will feel able to do so tonight. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham will wish to say something further

about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he catches your eye.
If the Bill reaches the statute book with no change of heart by the Government on schedule 11, it will be a black day for low-paid workers. In fairness, I believe that that greatly worries the Secretary of State. He cannot pretend that he is bothered about the inflationary effects of the schedule, which is primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at helping the low paid, when settlements for organised workers with industrial muscle are conceded at well over 20 per cent. and the Government virtually pretend that they have not happened.
In those circumstances, it is hypocritical to make the schedule and low-paid workers the scapegoats. I do not believe that the Secretary of State relishes the prospect of being tagged as the man who boosted the new sweat shops and back-street cowboys of the 1980s.
If the right hon. Gentleman insists that the schedule has been unduly inflationary, he should produce some properly researched evidence to that effect. We have evidence to show that the low-paid had gained—that was supplied in the Warwick university study—but all that we know about the overall inflationary consequences, particularly in relation to higher-paid workers, relates to a limited number of carefully selected cases which were referred to in Committee with no statistical, across-the-board back-up.
If the Government believe that the schedule was seriously inflationary and merits the fundamental decision to sweep it away, why has there been no detailed research done or commissioned by the Department of Employment into that aspect? We have had nothing.
We do not want any of the schedule to go. I should welcome genuine discussions between the Government, unions and employers to see whether the schedule's scope to assist the low paid could be improved. If necessary, perhaps there could be discussions on inhibition of its use by higher-paid groups. I do not say that that would be easy, but it would be possible and would be the best way to deal with the matter. If there is a fair case for retaining the general level provisions, as I believe, the case for retaining the recognised terms and conditions provisions is overwhelming.
It is hard to see why the Government have chosen to sweep away the schedule. We have to conclude that it is another battle that the Secretary of State fought, and lost decisively, in the Cabinet. He is stuck with a decision which he knows makes no sense in industrial relations terms and which strikes a damaging blow at low-paid workers.
Presumably the Cabinet majority, obsessed with its laissez-faire approach to such matters, wants to sweep the schedule away with its well-known doctrinaire zeal. The Secretary of State has been told by many trade unions and employers' organisations that abolition would be damaging to industrial relations, would help cowboy employers and might lead to a greater use of the strike weapon. Of course, that is looking into the future. It must be a matter of opinion, but those are well-based opinions of people with a wealth of experience in industrial relations. I know of no significant opinions to the contrary from either the industries expressing particular concern or elsewhere. It has been virtually one-way traffic against the Government position.
It will be scandalous if the Government ignore the weight of evidence and steamroller the change through. It may also be a measure of the Secretary of State's strength or weakness in the Cabinet. He should be opening up an exhaustive review of the whole low-paid area, which daily becomes more urgent as the Government's overall economic and social policies either plunge more people and more families into poverty or leave them on the brink of it.
I hope that we can avoid a vote on the new clause as a consequence of firm assurances that, if not today, at a later stage in the Bill's progress the Secretary of State will make the necessary change. He must have a fair idea by now of the content of the further representations that he will receive, even though the final date for the submission of representations has not yet been reached.
It will certainly not be good enough for the Secretary of State to say that he is still considering the matter.
We all know about his constraints. I have a vision of the Secretary of State leading his gallant band of Wets up to the top of the hill. There they are, quiv-

ering with excitement at the prospect of victory when they see this figure coming into their sights—with its Fried-maniacal grin—the Secretary of State for Industry, waving a banner with a picture of the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister, in that characteristic hectoring, finger-wagging pose, and carrying a slogan saying "You will be very, very sorry."
That prospect, I am sure, would send the Secretary of State and his band into headlong retreat down the hill again, and that would be the end of schedule 11. That is what worries me. Therefore, we want a firm response tonight. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give it, he cannot expect us simply to take him on trust—not with the back-stabbers that we have already seen tonight lurking behind him.
This clause of the Bill is a disgrace to any society which pretends to care for its worst-off people. The Secretary of State should be big enough tonight to tell the House quite clearly that he will drop it. If he cannot command that much backing from his colleagues—and we know that he really wants that backing—on an issue of great importance to so many low-wage earners and their families, it is highly questionable whether he should be carrying on in the job. Perhaps he should be telling the Prime Minister "I shall do this job in my way or I shall not do it at all."

Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this evening on this clause. Before I speak to it, I should first say that I was rather saddened by the introduction given by the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), because I am never terribly sure whether I am a Wet or what I am. Not everyone who voted against the Government tonight was necessarily a Wet—or whatever other term one might care to use—and I may well be asked to explain my position to someone else at a later stage.
I am not speaking from abstract theory. I happen to be a fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management. I have been involved in personnel work for most of my adult life, and I have been a director of personnel.
New clause 9, as I read it, deals with recognised terms and conditions. If I


understand it correctly, it is based on the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959. Because the present Bill, in clause 17(c), seeks to repeal schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975, this obviously creates a number of problems within industries which have grown accustomed to living with this kind of legislation.
We ought to look at the history of how we have arrived at this position today. This kind of legislation began during the war. It was wartime legislation which led to the setting up of joint industrial councils and wages councils and produced many voluntary procedures. Voluntary procedures call for a majority of employees and employers to agree on pay and conditions. The new clause, as I read it, seeks to provide a framework within which recognised terms and conditions in an industry will be created. It provides a starting point for local conditions of employment and wages and other factors to be negotiated.
If we repeal schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 and put nothing much in its place, we put at risk the national labour agreements which have been painfully won, and which, in the furniture manufacturing industry, of which I have some experience, have produced considerable industrial stability. I thought that on each side of the House we were all trying to find industrial stability. Unfortunately, hon. Members are often more interested in publicity seeking than in stability.
If I understand the position correctly, the Department of Employment has consulted many interested parties on this matter. I also understand that the CBI's industrial relations and wages conditions committee was divided equally on whether schedule 11 should be repealed in its entirety. I further understand that many large firms have indicated that they wish to see schedule 11 repealed in its entirety. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will take note of the quality of the views that have been expressed, as well as of the quantity. The quality is important. No one who knows how the industry works, would claim that schedule 11 has been a success in every sense, or that all parts of it have been successful. Indeed, parts of schedule 11 are suspect.
8.45 pm
Under the existing provisions, British furniture manufacturers and trade unions can negotiate national labour agreements. Individual furniture manufacturing firms are fully able to negotiate pay and conditions that take account of their circumstances, as long as they are not below the nationally agreed minimum. That is very important. Before the war the industry had a sad history of poor wages. The national labour agreement in the furniture manufacturing industry is not only influential in determining pay and conditions, but is the cornerstone of industrial relations in that industry.
Removal of the type of legislative backing provided in schedule 11 for recognised terms and conditions will undermine the whole painstaking edifice. If schedule 11 is totally repealed, that edifice will be put at risk. It may provide a breeding ground for discontent if some employers take advantage of this, at the expense of the long-term stability of the industry which the establishment of the British furniture trade joint industrial council in 1945 was designed to promote. I suggest that it has succeeded in achieving stability, and that that is important.
My reservations about the clause have been answered. I realise that it is a problem of drafting. I had reservations about the clause as it appeared on the Amendment Paper. New clause 9 does not contain a provision to bring employers as well as unions into the category that may report in writing to the Minister. That is a vital omission. Arrangements in the furniture industry have been successful as a result of co-operation between trade unions and employers.
Subsection (2) might have been better if it had included a provision for independent trade unions and an employers' association to act together and to report in writing to the Minister. That would provide a considerable improvement in drafting and I hope that it will be noted. I hope also that my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that he will consider the issue seriously. We may then look at the possibility of introducing an amendment in another place to take advantage of the benefits contained in former legislation. I do not wish to change the main aims of the present Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. They are needed and required.
When both sides of industry read the Bill they will realise that it is a genuine attempt to improve and assist industrial relations. It is not designed to bash the unions. I say that as a former active trade unionist. An active trade unionist often faces the problem that the parameters in which the individual must work are not clearly defined. Certainly that was the weakness in those trade unions of which I was a member. It is not the job of this House, or of the House of Lords, to tell the unions how to behave. It is our job, and that of the other place, to prepare the conditions so that both sides of industry can work together and reach solutions to Britain's problems.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I wish to speak in support of new clause 9 and amendment No. 106. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) referred to schedule 11 and its history, which he said went back to 1940. In fact, its lineage can be traced back even further, to the first fair wages resolution of 1891. That makes the Government's decision to abolish schedule 11 even more extraordinary. They are not just putting the clock back to the 1930s—that would be bad enough—but they are going back to the dark recesses of the nineteenth century in order to dispose of the schedule, which they have wrongly decided is damaging to industrial relations and does not help the low paid. There is no evidence to support that belief.
If that were the case, one would expect the Government to bring forward their own proposals to help low-paid workers, but that has not happened. They have rejected a schedule which finds its roots in the late nineteenth century. It was introduced then as people became aware slowly that if the Government were to place contracts with private employers they should at least be assured that they were not employing sweated labour, either directly or indirectly. In 1946 people came to realise that not only should the Government be seen to be a good and fair employer insisting on fair wages but that that concept should be extended to the private sector as well. Later this was incorporated in schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975.
It is extraordinary to find that the Government are now trying to overthrow

a long tradition by which people have come to terms with the fact that there is a relevant concept of fair wages and that it should be applied to all workers—in public or private industries, protected or unprotected by trade union membership. It is extraordinary that in the late twentieth century the Government are rejecting that hard-won and long thought out moral view. It would be interesting to hear the Secretary of State's justification for taking such a step and taking us back a century in terms of industrial relations and the wages that people should be paid for work done.
It is even more extraordinary that the Government should propose to abolish this schedule in view of their concern about incentives to work. We hear a great deal about the supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit levels being higher than the wages that some people can earn for a full week's work. The Government have sought to encourage people to take work and for that reason they believe that supplementary benefits and unemployment benefits should be restricted. But they have never looked at the other side of the argument, namely, that we should regard supplementary benefit or family income supplement levels as levels below which wages for a full week's work should not fall. That should be the direction from which the Government should argue if they are really concerned about incentives to work.
The whole notion of FIS and supplementary benefit depends on what a family can be expected to live on and to have their basic needs fulfilled. If that is what is implied by FIS and supplementary benefit levels, surely we should look at wages and ensure that they are sufficiently high to take the wage earner above the relevant benefit. Yet the Government are pursuing that kind of argument and talking about the essential incentives to keep a worker at work rather than encouraging him to turn away from work and to rely on unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. A Government committed to that sort of view are, at one and the same time, removing a schedule that helped to ensure that some workers at least were taken above supplementary benefit level in terms of their wages for a full week's work.
It is extraordinary that the Government should pursue these two different lines of attack. Their action can be seen only as an attack on low-paid workers. We have here an attempt to remove the only protection possessed by many low-paid workers as they seek to improve their pay and conditions of work. It is a protection that could be improved and extended. At least, in its form in the 1975 Act, it was a useful provision for many workers over the three years since it came into effect in 1977. Even as it stands, however, it is not an adequate provision. I would prefer to see some sort of proper minimum wage legislation, although that is another thorny and difficult issue. I do not propose to pursue it now.
I am anxious to argue for the preservation of schedule 11 and for the Government, through the Secretary of State, to give a commitment that he is prepared to reconsider all that has been said and that he is prepared to retain the schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) rightly emphasised the benefits of schedule 11 for industrial relations. He has rightly drawn attention to employers' associations of many kinds, including the Engineering Employers' Federation, that have argued for its retention. He has referred to a number of trade unions which would find themselves in difficulties without the ability to use schedule 11 to improve the pay and conditions of their workers. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise those aspects.
The fact that companies and unions want to retain the schedule is shown in harder evidence than mere statements made on behalf of those organisations—the hard evidence in terms of its use. Incomes Data Services Ltd., in its analysis of the fair wages resolution awards made in 1978, foundn that of 233 such awards, 42 were made by the company without the union being involved and there were indications of a measure of collusion in some claims. It is clear that companies were as anxious as trade unions to utilise schedule 11 and fair wagese resolutions to avoid the worst effects of pay policy.
It is clear, not merely from the statements of various employers' associations and of unions, that both companies and unions alike not only favoured schedule

11 but were prepared to use it. Their use of it meant that they had two possibilities. One was to avoid unnecessary industrial strife during a period of voluntary pay restraint. It further gave them an opportunity to deal with the anomalies that always arise in a period of incomes policy and to do so without resort to industrial action and all the costs that this imposes on companies. That is an important benefit of schedule 11. It is clear that the schedule was used in this way not only, as I have shown, by the analysis covering 1978, but during the other years when it was in operation.
9 pm
That is not the aspect of schedule 11 on which I wish to concentrate. I want to concentrate our attention on the way in which schedule 11 has helped the low paid. The effectiveness of the schedule should be examined in detail. In their original consultative document the Government claimed that many higher-paid groups benefited from the awards made under schedule 11 and that it was not used to abolish pockets of low pay. The Government also claimed that the majority of claims were made in respect of employees who could not be regarded as low paid on any absolute test. The way in which one defines low pay creates a problem. The problem is particularly serious if one introduces the notion of absolute low pay, as opposed to relative low pay.
There are two possibilities. First, one can examine the supplementary benefit level and regard that as the minimum income below which no individual or family should be allowed to fall. One can examine the effects of schedule 11 on low pay in those terms. In 1979–80 that criterion of low pay would involve a wage of about £60 a week. A wage below that could be regarded as a level below which no individual or family should be allowed to fall.
A second possibility is to examine the problem in terms of the average wage or earnings at the lowest decile. If one defines low pay as two-thirds of the average wage, £60 a week is arrived at again. About 3·3 million full-time adult workers earned less than that a week in 1979–80.
Some people argue that many such full-time workers are women. I am not sure of the point of that argument, but I suspect that some people believe that it does not


matter if women workers earn less than £60 a week. In the days of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts no one should make such remarks or think in those terms. To think in such terms is to fail to realise that a full-time worker might be a woman but she might also be single, the head of a single-parent family or the major breadwinner. Many full-time workers might be women but that is irrelevant. We should concentrate on the principle that a wage of less than £60 a week is totally inadequate for a full week's work, however unskilled or menial the task involved.
Let us examine the way in which schedule 11 was used and refer to research by the Warwick university industrial relations unit. That shows that schedule 11 benefited many manual and non-manual earning less than that. For example, their analysis suggests that in 1979 the median earnings of manual claimants under the recognised terms were £58·80 per week. For those claiming under the general terms—those using that particular provision of schedule 11—wages were £56·90 per week and that was in a year in which the new earnings survey showed a median wage of £64·70 per week. That was a more correct figure than the average figure for earnings for full-time work. In other words, as far as manual claimants were concerned, both groups using schedule 11 earned, in some cases, considerably below the median wage of £64·70 for that year.
In the case of non-manual claimants the situation was different. The median earnings for those who claimed under the recognised terms were £103·90 per week and for those who claimed under general terms earnings were £80·50 per week compared with the median for all non-manual employees of £96·40 per week. In that case it appeared that many of the claimants earned more than the median wage, but this was due to the figures being distorted by a special factor, namely, claims by higher grade local authority staff.
The results from 1977 and 1979 confirm a similar analysis carried out for 1978 in which it appeared that schedule 11 was fulfilling one of its objectives which was to help remove pockets of low pay. The 1979 survey confirmed the results of 1978. The figures for 1979 showed that only 8 per cent. of claims from manual workers were on behalf of groups with pre-award earnings that were above the average.

The remaining 92 per cent. were below the overall median.
Even among non-manual groups almost three-quarters had average pre-award earnings below the national average. Therefore, if one looks at the survey carried out by the University of Warwick unit it appears that in pretty well every case those who put in the claims under schedule 11 were earning below the average, or median, wages in their respective groups of manual or non-manual earnings. Therefore, it shows that schedule 11 benefited the lower paid. Those results show that many were helped and that pockets of low pay were removed. To my mind, that is the most important feature and purpose of schedule 11.
I want to see not only something that will benefit industrial relations, important though that is, and not only something that will encourage the development of trade unionism—often engaging in claims of this kind encourages the growth of trade unionism and I consider that that is important—but an effective means of dealing with the problem of low pay.
Schedule 11 may not be everything that one could wish in this respect, but it has had an important effect. Many groups of workers have benefited from it. If those workers remain in full-time work and if their earnings are raised above the supplementary benefit level they are given just the kind of incentive to remain in work that the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues want.
If the Secretary of State is anxious that workers should have that incentive, it must be asked over and over again why the Government are doing away with schedule 11. If the Government are serious in their efforts to encourage people to remain in work and not fall back on supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit, this is exactly the kind of legislation that the Government should not only retain but actively try to improve and extend.
Instead of apologising, as undoubtedly the Secretary of State will, for the fact that he cannot, after all, because the Cabinet does not wish it, allow the retention of schedule 11, the right hon. Gentleman should be bringing forward well thought out amendments to improve and make schedule 11 more effective.
I am sick and tired of the kind of arguments that pour forth from Conservative politicians condemning people who have to rely on supplementary or unemployment benefit because, in the vast majority of cases, they have been thrown out of work through redundancy, sickness or disability of one kind or another, their age or the fact that their skills are no longer valuable. I am sick to death of hearing such people castigated as though they were work-shy and were doing everything possible to avoid work. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that, if they could get a few more pence knocked off income tax, that would draw them off unemployment or supplementary benefit in their hordes and back to the labour market.
The startling fact is that more than 3 million people are prepared to do a full week's work for less than £60 a week. That is what politicians ought to be commenting on, especially politicians with large private incomes or assets of their own. The startling fact is that more than 3 million people are prepared to do boring, humdrum, dirty, menial jobs. That is what we should be commenting on, and not just with surprise. Those are the people to whom we should say "You ought not to be doing a full week's work for wages of that kind." Of course, I am mentioning gross pay. I have said nothing about deductions for national insurance or income tax. We should look to those people and say "You should not be working for that kind of wage. Your wage should be above the level that we consider necessary to fulfil the basic needs of an individual or family."
We have hard, concrete evidence of the kind provided by the University of Warwick, to which my hon. Friends referred in Committee. With the kind of commitment to incentives to work, which the Government have repeatedly asserted both within the Chamber and in the media, I am astonished that they are seeking to abolish this schedule. Their commitment should be not to repeal it but to improve and extend it.
What we should hear from a shamefaced Secretary of State is that he is sorry that he ever thought of abolishing schedule 11 and that, before the Bill completes its stages in this House, he will put his civil servants to work on ways

of improving and extending the schedule. We should not hear him mouthing words about the need for incentives to work and then taking away from low-paid workers the minimal protection that many of them have.

Mr. Radice: I support new clause 9 because I was not impressed by the arguments advanced in Committee by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. They did not seem able to answer the wide evidence in favour of keeping schedule 11 in some form. I refer to the evidence which has been quoted this evening and which was quoted in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), who is rapidly becoming a notable expert in this area.
In Committee, I was impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needam) in favour of retaining schedule 11. We have heard another similar speech tonight. Indeed, many employers' organisations, as well as the trade union movement, community organisations, the Low Pay Unit and academic organisations of one kind or another, are in favour of keeping schedule 11 in some form.
9.15 pm
The major argument is that about low pay. I am a General and Municipal Workers Union sponsored Member of Parliament, and I am an author on the subject of low pay, but I shall not weary the House tonight on that subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) quoted some of the evidence about low pay. It is true that there are considerable numbers of low-paid workers in all industries, as well as a number of low-paid industries. My hon. Friend quoted evidence, mostly emanating from Warwick university, about how schedule 11 has helped the low-paid workers.
If the Secretary of State had said that he had invented a new policy to help the low paid—perhaps through social security, taxation, minimum wages legislation, or even incomes policy—there might have been a case for saying that, in those circumstances, schedule 11 was redundant. However, that is not what he said. He has not put anything else in its place. He is leaving the low paid without any protection other than that


of free collective bargaining, which has not always been the best protection in the past.
On the subject of pay policy, there is something in the argument about the inflationary aspects of schedule 11. However, the Government do not believe in pay policy. The Secretary of State, in the middle of the night, might think "Perhaps I shall have to press for a pay policy or a pay freeze to be introduced in the Autumn". But the fact is that there is not a pay policy. Therefore, the Government can hardly use the argument that schedule 11 is inflationary if they do not believe that pay affects inflation, or if they believe the sort of stuff that is being put out by the Treasury.
We have heard very good speeches from Conservative Members about industrial relations, to which I do not wish to add. They fear that the abolition of schedule 11 could be used to undercut or undermine some of the achievements made by firms. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) mentioned the furniture industry, but there are other industries such as road haulage and construction. The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned also the organisation of which he is a member, namely, the Institute of Personnel Management. I hope that for all these reasons the Government will say that they will reconsider the case, as they said they would when they heard all the evidence, and that they will now change their minds.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I wish to support the case that has been put forward for new clause 9. The matter was debated at great length in Committee. The Secretary of State has had an opportunity since then to consider the points that we put forward.
It is difficult to understand the motivation of the Government in deciding to abolish schedule 11. I can only conclude that it is another spoke in the wheel. The Government intend to use it as part of their policy to curb inflation. I recall that during the Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was necessary to widen the gap between people in receipt of social security—the unemployed—and the low-paid worker. As a consequence of that,

it was proposed that unemployment pay should increase only by 11 per cent. instead of 16 per cent.
It appears that this is being taken a stage further, so that low-paid workers will lose the protection that they have had hitherto under the clause. For the first time in almost 90 years there will be no statutory provision for the extension of recognised terms and conditions of employment in civil industries. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, that has been of great benefit to low-paid workers.
One must reinforce the point that it is in the employers' interests to keep the provision in the 1975 Act intact. As we know, the CBI is equally divided in regard to this proposition. Many employers, particularly reputable ones, want to safeguard their own terms and conditions of employment against attack from unscrupulous rivals who may employ similar labour at lower rates. For example, one can understand an employer in the road haulage industry, who pays good wages to his workers, resenting the appearance of another operator who uses substandard equipment and low-paid workers to undercut the market.
In a sense, the schedule is a protection for employers as well as a protection for lower-paid workers. We have been told that consultation took place before the Government arrived at this decision. One is entitled to ask "Who has been consulted?" My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) read a number of letters from various trade unions indicating that they were against this proposition and asking the Government to reconsider their attitude. We know that the Secretary of State has had no communication from the CBI, but I am sure that representations have been made to him by many employers urging him not to interfere with the schedule in the 1975 Act.
This fair wages measure has a long history. It was first put in resolution form to the House in 1891. It reappeared during the war years as order 1305, together with other legislation. It appeared once again in the 1959 Act, when the Conservatives were in power, and then in the 1975 Act. Therefore, there is a long tradition attached to the creation of machinery and administration


which, to some extent, would safeguard the position of low-paid workers.
All that is to be abolished in the name of theory and ideology, not in the name of practical politics, and certainly not at the request of either trade unionists or reputable employers. The proposal has already met with some opposition from Conservative Members. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again. I hope that he will consider what was said in Committee and in this debate and will decide that the best interests, not only of the Government but also of lower-paid workers, will be met by continuing the provisions enshrined in the 1975 Act.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The only organisation, if they can be called that, who take the view that schedule 11 ought to be abolished are the Government. Every other group which has given evidence takes a contrary view. The CBI was apparently split. The TUC is against abolition. The Low Pay Unit takes the view that schedule 11, with all its imperfections, has been of benefit to the low paid. The Institute of Personnel Management also takes the same view, as do many of the Secretary of State's colleagues, as evidenced by the expert speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). Yet the right hon. Gentleman appears to be persistent in his view that schedule 11 has not fulfilled its purpose, despite the fact that it has only been in operation for three years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) referred in Committee to a letter from the Camden committee for community relations. I received a similar letter, and I should have thought that its evidence was overwhelming. It demonstrated that in industries which are not unionised and which are fragmented—such as the small hotel industry, the catering industry and the garment workers industry, many of which employ ethnic minorities—there is no doubt that schedule 11 is not simply beneficial, but that it is possibly their only protection. They are among the most vulnerable, least protected sections of the community, and they are almost universally low paid. Yet the Government are suggesting, and indeed legislating to

secure, that schedule 11 should be abolished. On what evidence are they doing so? They are legislating purely on evidence that was put forward in their discussion documents—that schedule 11 has not fulfilled its purpose. They give no supporting evidence for that claim except that it may have helped people who are not so poorly paid in the course of helping those who are low paid. Those are spurious reasons for ceasing to give protection to people who are in need of protection, particularly at a time of high unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) made a speech analysing the problems of the low paid. I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend say—I am sure that other hon. Members must have been equally astonished—that 3 million people, many of them women, in Britain earn less than £60 per week. My hon. Friend is right in saying that they should be praised for remaining in work.
Conservative Members—I do not include the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire—have made great play over and over again about abuses of social security, and they have said that it is more profitable not to work than to work. If that is their belief, they should be doing everything possible to encourage people to work. One of the ways of doing that is by ensuring that low-paid workers are given sufficient financial incentive to seek work and to remain in work, rather than to claim social security benefits. But the Government are doing nothing to encourage people to remain in work by removing this protection and benefit from low-paid workers.
I could understand it if the Secretary of State were to produce a master plan for helping low-paid workers. I could understand it if he said that he intended to abolish schedule 11 because a more efficient means of helping low-paid workers had been found which would not be as inflationary as schedule 11, which would not benefit those that it was not intended to benefit, and which may not make such a dent in the non-existent pay policy. But the Government have simply abolished schedule 11, which all expert opinion suggests has been of some benefit—if not of sufficient benefit—to the low paid. Of all the measures in the Bill, this is the pettiest and meanest.

Mr. Crowther: I was extremely impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). He spoke on the basis of his considerable experience in the furniture industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay serious attention to his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman appears not to have paid much attention to what was said in Committee.
At the end of a long debate in Committee I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to think again. I thought that he had been impressed by some of the Opposition's arguments that he would give the matter further thought and that he would talk to the TUC. I seem to remember him giving an undertaking that he would have discussions with the TUC and possibly return on Report with something to repair some of the damage that would be done by repealing schedule 11 and the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938. I hope that when he replies we shall receive some assurance that the enormous vacuum which is being created will be filled to some extent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) spoke of the rather lengthy period over which we have had legislation on this subject. The concept of fair wages goes back a long way. It is a centuries-old tradition. It goes back to the days of the Plantagenet kings. There were ordinances to prevent people being forced to work for wages which were lower than those which had been established as the norm for the job. It is a principle that has been enshrined in legislation.
The Government now propose at a stroke to remove the principle. Schedule 11 and the Road Haulage Wages Act are the only two remaining examples. It seems that both items are to disappear from the statute book. Subject to what the right hon. Gentleman said, it seems that nothing will replace them. It is extremely sad to see the Government destroying centuries of tradition and many years of legislation.
In a civilised community it is important that people should not be expected to work in conditions of sweated labour. Are we not a civilised country? Is it not reasonable that we should have some legislation to prevent people from falling into such a trap? I am sure that my hon.

Friend the Member for Thurrock has totally convinced the House, even though Conservative Members may not be able to support the Opposition when we divide. I am sure that the case that she presented must have convinced them that schedule 11, or something similar to it, is vital for the protection of low-paid workers.
I am also concerned about those who do not necessarily come into the low-paid category. Surely order in industrial relations is a good thing. Surely some provision of the type that was in schedule 11 is helpful both to the high-paid and the low-paid. If the Bill is enacted in its present form and there is nothing to replace the schedule there is a greater likelihood of industrial disputes developing into strike action when, under the old system, it could possibly have been settled without a strike. The value of schedule 11 has been proved.
Again, we are losing the Road Haulage Wages Act. That is the only other piece of legislation on this subject. Schedule 11 would have taken over the functions of the Road Haulage Wages Act, but schedule 11 is going as well. I mention one recent example of the great value of the Road Haulage Wages Act. In the milk industry, just over a year ago, it was possible for a wages dispute to be settled amicably under the terms of that legislation by the Central Arbitration Committee. That settlement followed a bitter dispute in the road haulage industry when there had been strikes throughout the country. Strikes could have occurred in the milk industry but for the rights of the parties to go to the committee to get the dispute settled.
It takes only a moment's imagination to visualise the terrible consequences of a strike of road haulage workers in the milk industry, with no milk being moved from the farms to the depots or from the depots to the customers. Few dairy farmers have the capacity to keep milk in storage for more than a couple of days. A strike of that nature would be a disaster, but it was averted because of that useful piece of legislation. Now it is about to disappear, together with schedule 11, and it is a tragedy.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that he has given this matter a little more thought and that he will come forward with a proposal to fill this glaring gap in the


legislation which will undoubtedly lead to more strikes, not only by low wage-earners. People who are working for companies which have negotiated a good settlement will not stand idly by while someone down the road undercuts their conditions. Of course, they will take action. So from both points of view it is desirable that the fair wages concept should operate.

Mr. Bill Homewood: Will my hon. Friend stress an important point which the Government have overlooked? I have had 13 years' experience as a trade union officer and in the past few years schedule 11 has been used on innumerable occasions in the West Midlands to avert disputes and stoppages that would have occurred if it had not been in operation. Much of the Bill is devoted to getting rid of strikes, but getting rid of schedule 11 will increase the likelihood of strikes.

Mr. Crowther: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that expression of support. In view of his long experience as an officer in the trade union movement he is well qualified to speak on that matter.
The whole of the Bill will damage industrial relations. If there is any doubt about that, speaking from the point of view of people who have experience in trade unions, there is no doubt that it will cause vast damage to the general picture of industrial relations. We are trying to repair some of that damage, or at least mitigate it by putting something useful into the gap which has been created by the repeal of schedule 11 and the Road Haulage Wages Act. I hope that we shall hear of some more constructive attitude from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: The Under-Secretary of State for Employment made the following remark in Committee:
Those who support the continuance of the arrangements in schedule 11 have those honourable motives. They want to help those whose pay is lower than that of most other people in the same class of work. I am quite certain of that. … The difference between us is whether we consider that we should rely upon mechanistic solutions, and put our faith in procedures".

What was the hon. Gentleman saying? Should we rely on the operation of the fair wages resolution of schedule 11 and endeavour to solve the problems of workers' wages and conditions on the principles already laid down by agreements within industry, or should we rely on their taking action on the basis of their organised strength?
It is being said that workers should not be entitled to wages and conditions generally obtaining unless they are prepared to organise, to go into conflict with employers and to fight for and win those wages and conditions in the traditional way that trade unionists have won them. That will lead to anarchy, conflict, strikes, lock-outs, picketing and all the other developments that the Government say that they want to reduce.
Some workers are badly organised in some industries and in some sections of industries that have some good organisation, but pockets of bad organisation. Those workers need the "mechanistic" support of fair wages and the conditions that generally obtain in the industry in which they work.
In the clothing industry in my constituency there are many home workers who are badly organised and need protection from the rabid exploitation which creates unfair competition for those who are better organised and work for companies that operate proper wages and conditions. Are we to withdraw the protection of schedule 11 from those workers and so undermine the wages and conditions of workers generally in that industry?
Collective bargaining by trade unions has already laid the basis for fair wages and the norm that exists within industry. Having been a national trade union officer in the engineering industry for 20 years, I know that, both nationally and locally, the basis is laid by negotiations that take place at national or district level. But that is the minimum, below which workers are not expected to fall. On that is built the productivity, piecework and other wage bases in the agreements that are expected to be operated as the wages and conditions that should generally obtain within the industry.
Schedule 11 stops the unprincipled employer from undercutting other employers who are paying proper wages


and giving proper conditions to their workers. That point was taken up in Committee by the Under-Secretary who said:
I can understand why an employers' federation or association would want to ensure that the members of the federation did not face competition from those who did not subscribe to terms and conditions which the federation had negotiated. It is perfectly right that there should be associations, and I am in favour of their being strong. But I am not so much in favour of their being strong as to lead me to support statutory provisions which enable people to have their wages hoisted as a result of negotiations entered into by different people who do not represent them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 1980; c. 1663, 1675.]
To what theory is the Minister subscribing? Is he subscribing to a theory—which I have long held, incidentally, in the engineering industry—that only those who belong to a trade union and who are organised should receive the increases negotiated by the union? Is he advocating that kind of principle? He obviously is, for he is saying that unless the workers in a particular industry on a particular job have been organised and are party to negotiations, they shall not have the benefits which have been achieved by the organised workers in that industry. If that principle were to be operated in a factory in relation to non-trade unionists who were not party to trade union agreements, so that they did not get the better wages and conditions, it would result in a considerable number of unorganised workers being recruited into unions in this country.
Schedule 11 must be maintained, above all, because it provides a safety net for the poorly paid, for the low paid and for those who are unfortunate enough at this stage to be unorganised.

Mr. Michael Martin: I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government's decision on this matter. Before I was elected to the House, I was a full-time union officer with the National Union of Public Employees. We recruited mainly in the hospital services and in education, but a small minority of our workers worked for charitable institutions up and down the country. The only way in which I could help the members working in private nursing homes and in private medicine was through schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975.
There were cases in which highly-skilled people were employed, say, in a nursing home. Sometimes it would be a married couple. The wife would be a skilled nurse and the husband would be the superintendent. No one would blame that couple for saying that they could not go on strike because, if they did so, they would jeopardise the lives of the people in their care.
A great many difficulties arose when I approached the employers. In their way they were good employers, but they had absolutely no idea of what negotiations or industrial relations were about. When it was pointed out to them that a skilled nurse should get more than £20 for a 45-hour week and for working weekends, they would say "Ah, but we give them a flat, we give them free electricity, we allow them to have the produce from the garden", and so on. The only way in which I could make a comparison was to point to a local authority nursing home where the matron had a flat and free electricity, or had some payment made to her in that respect.
Ministers often tell us that they want to look after the workers who do not have the militant power of the large unions. They rightly tell us that those who are loyal to their employers should have their just rewards. They now have a chance to keep schedule 11 in the Act. A large membership benefits from the Whitley Council agreements and from the national joint negotiation agreements.
This type of clause would allow the employer to reach some form of agreement. Employers would welcome legislation that gave guidance and assistance. They do not wish to become bogged down in long, drawn-out negotiations. They are usually small employers, and have other things to do.
I beg the Government to retain schedule 11 because it gives a great deal of help and protection to the weaker sections of our society.

Mr. John Evans: As every hon. Member knows—none more than you, Mr. Speaker—the House of Commons is a strange place. We have had a remarkable debate. Tomorrow the media will describe the first part of our proceedings as "high drama". I refer to those on the Back Benches behind the Secretary of State and the hostility with which


parts of his speech were met. Such a description cannot be used for the second part of the debate. With one or two honourable exceptions, the Government Back Benches are empty. That is traditional.
Once again we find ourselves discussing the problems of workers who are at the bottom of the pay scale. The Conservative Party always shows a lack of interest about such groups. I hope that when the Division bell rings, Conservative Back Benchers will not troop into the Lobby and ask the Whips which way to vote. I hope that they will have some compassion and thought for the workers for whom they earlier professed great concern.
Opposition Members will recall that we were regaled by the speeches of Conservative Members. One would have thought that they had nothing closer to their hearts than the welfare and well-being of workers in British industry. When we discuss a major issue, the Government Benches are empty. The first part of the debate was a non-starter. The result of that debate was a foregone conclusion. The only event of note was the so-called rebellion of 45 Conservative Members. However, if they had not got wind of the fact that the Opposition planned to vote against those new clauses, I suspect that the rebellion would have been half that size. That is the one thing that came out of that farcical debate.
No doubt the Secretary of State is aware that we are now discussing more important issues. I cannot but return to the words used by the Under-Secretary in Committee. He referred to schedule 11 and said:
As the hon. Member for Rotherham has rightly said, provisions of this nature have a long history in this country, but that factor alone is not decisive of the issues before the Committee.
In Plantaganet times, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and in more recent times, if one belonged to, or tried to set up, something of the nature of a trade union one went inside and probably did not come out because it was criminal conspiracy.
In view of the attitudes of some of the Secretary of State's colleagues, one would suspect that they might welcome a criminal conspiracy clause for trade union activities being written into the Bill.
The Under-Secretary went on:
It remained so until the enlightened Conservative Government of 1875 passed an Act which took it out of the criminal law. Consequently, the Minister responsible received a telegram of congratulations from the newly-formed TUC. It was the last telegram of congratulations from the TUC, but we live in hope!"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 1980; c. 1662.]
If the Secretary of State wants another telegram from the TUC, I suggest that he accepts our proposal. We guarantee that he will then receive a telegram of congratulations. Whether the Conservative Government of 1875 were enlightened we do not know, but I do not think that anyone would try to suggest that the Conservative Government of 1980 are in any way enlightened.
When one reads this Bill or refers to the reports of the Standing Committee debates, one sees that we tried desperately to suggest that the Government should accept our amendments in order to keep a framework of compassion by retaining schedule 11 in our legislation. However, we got nowhere. The Secretary of State was rather careful in his phraseology, and I hope that he will tell us tonight whether he has had any consultations or views on the retention of the schedule. It is important that the House should appreciate that schedule 11 is an extremely important safety valve in the employment legislation of this country. It is important to recognise that there are various spin-off factors which flow from establishing a rate of pay for a district, for a job or for an organisation.
We make no apologies for making it clear that we seek to help the low paid. The only answer that we had in Standing Committee about the removal of schedule 11 was a passing reference to the restoration of free collective bargaining. We received no other reasonable argument for dispensing with schedule 11. The Under-Secretary admitted that it had a long and honourable history in trade union and labour relations in this country, yet we were simply told that it would fall because it was not necessary in the context of free collective bargaining.
We seek to persuade the Secretary of State that we are talking of pockets of workers—in many cases there are large numbers of them—in a variety of areas where there is very weak trade union organisation. Those workers would have


difficulty in establishing a reasonable wage. It helps those people if we have compassionate, far-sighted legislation such as schedule 11 to which the trade unions can refer.
I accept the argument that the Under-Secretary put to the Standing Committee that schedule 11 does not only help the low paid. That is correct. However, the Government should not lose sight of the fact that it is a valuable aid and safety valve for the low paid. I urge hon. Members to recognise that socially this is an extremely useful piece of legislation and even if the Secretary of State sought to amend it so that it would affect only the low paid we would agree with that. But he has not sought to amend it in that way; he is merely sweeping it from the statute book. Will he tell us how its removal will be of any benefit whatever to the low paid?
At Question Time today my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) asked the Secretary of State for Employment to introduce legislation to establish a statutory national minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman refused. When my hon. Friend attempted to elucidate the arguments in favour of a national minimum wage, particularly with reference to workers in many parts of the public sector, the Secretary of State indicated that he thought that the public sector had done very well in the past four or five years. I do not think that anyone would argue against the Secretary of State about certain elements in the public sector if one is referring to Cabinet Ministers, chief executives of local authorities or principal secretaries—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Evans: There are elements within the public sector that have done well. That was not the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. My hon. Friend was talking about the problem of low pay. If there were any suggestion by the Gov-

ernment that they had plans to help the low paid, we would be fascinated by their arguments and support the Secretary of State if he brought forward legislation. The legislation that the Government have produced since, unfortunately, they were elected in May last year constitutes a constant attack on the low paid.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that free collective bargaining by itself will not help the low paid. There are many arguments both for and against free collective bargaining, but no one can seriously argue that free collective bargaining has proved to be of any benefit to the low paid. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude.
I should like to turn briefly to the impact of schedule 11 on higher grades of workers. The schedule proved, during the lifetime of the Labour Government, to be an extremely useful piece of legislation. The Under-Secretary of State inferred on 27 March that schedule 11 was only of any use when there was incomes policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I leave out of account the pay policy argument. We all agree that schedule 11 was used as a means of getting round a statutory pay policy. We do not have a statutory pay policy and I trust that we will not have one again.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 1980; c. 1664.]
There is a growing feeling in this country that we are not far removed from the reintroduction of pay policy. It will be interesting to see how long before it comes about. I again pose the question that, if a statutory pay policy is imposed on the country, will the Government return schedule 11 to the statute book? In those circumstances, it would prove to be an extremely valuable safety valve. It is not only useful in the context of an incomes policy that is statutorily, voluntarily or rigidly applied. It is an extremely useful form of settling disputes that occur in various parts of the country that could be bitter, prolonged and finish up creating a great deal of anger. It is a useful piece of arbitration.
I should like to give the House a brief example of an occasion when schedule 11 was used to resolve what could have been a long dispute. Many hon. Members will recall the dispute in the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside at the time of the Polish orders. The finishing trades


in the shipyard demanded pay comparability with the boilermakers. Many hon. Members had difficulty in understanding the dispute, but the seeds had been sown many years previously. The argument about comparability between the finishing trades and the boilermaking trades had lasted for a long time. In the early 1970s there was a long dispute of some six weeks in which the finishing trades, with which I was concerned, established that they were entitled to wages comparability with the boilermakers. However, as a result of pay policies and the nationalisation which overtook the shipbuilding industry following the Labour Government's Act, the finishing trades on Tyne-side were badly out of step with the boilermakers on Tyneside and with finishing trades in other parts of British Shipbuilders.
Once the dispute began, British Shipbuilders took a hard line, backed by the Labour Government. British Shipbuilders threatened to remove ships from Tyneside. However, the AUEW and other unions used schedule 11. They brought into focus the argument not only that the finishing trades on Tyneside were entitled to parity with the boilermakers but, more importantly, that they were entitled to comparability with the other finishing trades in British Shipbuilders. An awkward and bitter dispute was avoided because of the imposition of schedule 11. Such legislation is useful.
When Governments take office there is always a tendency to sweep away everything that previous Governments of a different colour have enacted. That ap-

parently proves their virility to their Back Benchers and shows that they are honouring their manifesto It takes about two and a half years for Governments to recognise that some of their actions in the first flush of office were foolish and stupid. The removal of schedule 11 would be one such foolishness.
It is important to acknowledge that the Government intend to retain ACAS. I was pleased that the Secretary of State was not persuaded by his more reactionary colleagues to get rid of ACAS. It would be of great benefit to many workers, not only to the lower paid, to retain schedule 11. Are the Government proposing to remove schedule 11 and to return to the law of the jungle? The evidence is that those with the most muscle win the day and obtain what they want, often at the expense of those that lack muscle.
We suspect that the Government are still using the paper written by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in which he outlines where the Government must give way because of the muscle of workers in certain industries, where they might be able to hold the line, and where they might take on workers without fear of defeat. If that is the Government aim, the U-turn will come sooner rather than later.
In Committee the Secretary of State said that he would consider further representations for the retention of schedule 11. I hope that he will give the matter further consideration. We have not been remiss in coming to his assistance. This is one occasion on which he could come to our assistance by retaining schedule 11.

Mr. Prior: We have had another interesting debate of importance. I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in it.
New clause 9 will restore the provisions of section 8 of the Term and Conditions of Employment Act 1959 and it would allow claims to be made only by independent trade unions. Section 8 allowed claims by employers and unions who were party to the agreement. That Act was repealed by section 98 of the 1975 Act and the provisions of section 8 were replaced by that part of the schedule relating to recognised terms and conditions. Schedule 11 greatly extends the scope of the provisions by the addition of general level provisions.
New clause 12 seems to apply not solely to cases in which the CAC is directing its mind to the offsetting provisions of paragraph 9 but to any schedule 11 case before the CAC. That seems to be in slight contradiction to what the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) was saying in Committee about the CAC's discretion in determining whether terms and conditions are unfavourable by excluding the specific matters referred to from being taken into account.

Amendment No. 106 has the effect of restoring in their entirely schedule 11 and the remaining parts of the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938. Amendment 110 was not selected but was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). Because it has not been selected, I must not deal with it in detail. What my hon. Friend said was that he felt that the first leg of schedule 11—the recognised terms and conditions leg—should remain part of the schedule. Those are the issues we are discussing.

The Government wish to repeal schedule 11 in its entirety. Our reasons, briefly summarised, are these. First, we believe that the schedule is objectionable in principle since it inhibits individual employers and unions from concluding their own agreements on pay and conditions to suit their particular circumstances, including market forces and a firm's ability to pay. We believe that the schedule weakens the essential link between pay and productivity.

Secondly, the schedule has not, as was intended, acted as a mechanism to eliminate pockets of low pay. When schedule 11 in the Employment Protection Act 1975 was going through Committee the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who was Minister of State at the time, said that it was a measure to help the low paid and to extend collective bargaining. The measure has not done that and the TUC is, I believe, the first to admit that that has not been the effect of the recognised terms and conditions part of schedule 11.

I have recently received a letter from the TUC in reply to the further inquiries we have been making. One of the points made in the letter—I should point out that the TUC is in favour of retaining schedule 11—is contained in paragraph 4:
The Government's main criticisms of the operation of Schedule 11 were set out in its working paper of September 1979. One Government argument was that while Schedule 11 was aimed at 'pockets of low pay' many higher paid groups have benefited.

The letter goes on:
However, low pay as such cannot be remedied by use of the Schedule. Schedule 11 operates to eliminate comparative low pay within industries and not between them, and district rates in specific industries have been the criteria adopted.

We are not going to deal—

Mr. John Grant: Will the right hon. Gentleman read on?

Mr. Prior: Perhaps I should read the whole letter. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has a copy. I have only just received one. The letter continues:
None the less, research carried out by the SSRC Industrial Relations Research Unit indicates that Schedule 11 has been used to benefit below-average wage earners. The repeal of Schedule 11, wholly or in part, will do nothing to help the low paid: for many employees it is the only form of statutory protection available concerning wages".
I think that I have read the appropriate part.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), in her interesting speech, and the hon. Member for Islington, Central referred to the research unit at Warwick and its statistics which sought to


compare what low paid workers were getting as a result of schedule II based on awards from 1977 to 1979.
We have done more work on that matter since the debate in Committee. The IRRU's results suggest that the pay of schedule 11 claimants was in general below average, but that is not the same as establishing that they were low paid. Indeed, there is no agreement about what low pay is. The research unit's sample did not include awards for which sufficient and reliable data were not available. That means that, for example, in 1978 less than half of all employees involved in schedule 11 awards were covered by the analysis. It is likely that awards relating to groups with complicated pay structures, such as the 26,000 BBC employees, will have been excluded. Many higher paid groups have undoubtedly benefited from schedule 11. Indeed, many of the groups in British Shipbuilders, to whom the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) referred, which benefited from schedule 11 were by no stretch of the imagination low-paid workers. We ought to bear that point in mind, because the criterion of the abolition of schedule 11 has been that it dealt chiefly with lower-paid workers and low pay. However, I do not believe that it has had that effect.

Dr. McDonald: The Secretary of State said that his Department has carried out further work on the impact of schedule 11 on low pay. He then went on to say that he had no notion of the definition of "low pay". How was his Department able to carry out further analysis and to discover whether schedule 11 affected low pay without a working definition of "low pay"?

Mr. Prior: I hope that I did not mislead the hon. Lady. I said that in Committee we were asked about the research unit's work and we were not able to give a reply. I have since asked for more details of what the research unit has done. It is clear from that information that the sample taken by the IRRU was comparatively small and left out many of those who would have been at the top end of the range.
The third point that has led us to believe that we should repeal the schedule is that some awards have disrupted agreed

pay structures and undermined established collective bargaining arrangements giving rise to claims by other groups of employees in the same negotiating structure for the preservation of differentials or for comparable treatment. The TUC also acknowledges this point, while arguing that schedule 11 has equally been used by employers and trade unions to help in resolving anomalies.
The last point is that the main use of the schedule in practice—and it has been admitted by Opposition Members—has been as a means of circumventing incomes policy, which is certainly not a use envisaged when the schedule was brought into operation. I do not know the latest number of cases, but they have fallen off considerably since the incomes policy was discontinued. For those reasons, we believe that it is right to abolish the whole of schedule 11.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire and to other hon. Members who raised the point with me, may I say that we said in Committee that because of the representations made to us at that time, and because of the debate that we had, we would consult further, without any commitment whatsoever, to see whether more employers or employers' organisations wished to make representations for the continuation of at least the recognised terms and conditions leg of the schedule. Those consultations are continuing.
I wrote to the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, I answered a question in the House, and there has been some publicity. As a result, we are still receiving a number of views. So far we have received views from the TUC and the CBI. Three or four organisations have written to us in favour of the return of the whole of the schedule, sometimes with amendment. Four or five organisations have written to us in favour of the retention of recognised terms and conditions, and they are mostly employers' associations. About 10 organisations, mostly individual firms, have written to us in favour of total repeal. That is the progress that has been made on the question of further consultation.
I must say to the House that, unless there are very strong reasons which result from the further consultation, the Government will continue with their plan,


under the Bill, to abolish schedule 11. Therefore, I should not mislead the Opposition Members tonight as to our intentions. I simply do not believe that the best way to help the low paid, or to help the country out of its difficulties, is simply by having legislation of that nature. The legislation under section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, which is the purpose of new clause 9—although it does not follow it exactly—was used by only 18,000 workers on the subject of claims, and only about 8,000 benefited in the years in which it was in operation. During the period 1959 to 1974 the failure rate for claims appears to have averaged about 50 per cent.
A study by Jeff Latta in the "Industrial Law Journal" in March 1975, entitled "The legal extension of collective bargaining; a study of section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959" concluded:
The economic effect of section 8 was very small … section 8's effect was minimal and it did not even score as an efficient means of bringing 'undercutting' rogue employers into line.
I do not think that new clause 9 would have much effect.

Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State say what the Government intend to do about low pay?

Mr. Prior: I shall try to end on that note.
New clause 9 would broadly restore section 8 with its original limitations. It would appear further to restrict the way in which the provision could be used by limiting access under paragraph 2 to an independent trade union. I do not know whether that is a mistake. It may be an oversight, but it is certainly one that we could not possibly accept if we were thinking of going down that route.

Mr. Bill Walker: I drew attention to that omission in my speech and suggested that it was a drafting error. I received the impression from Opposition Members that it was a drafting error.

Mr. Prior: I was not certain whether that was the impression. In any event, I thought that I ought to draw attention to it.
I do not understand what the hon. Member for Islington, Central is trying to get at in regard to new clause 12. In

Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State had a considerable argument with him about the famous case of Courtaulds at Carrickfergus. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that, in being made to accept a schedule 11 award, Courtaulds felt that it had a considerable effect on one of its factories and on the ability of that factory to compete. At that stage, my hon. and learned Friend talked in terms of giving weight to ability to pay only by setting aside to some extent the CAC's obligations to award in line with recognised terms or general level. There is no profitability criterion or any reference to profit in the schedule. That is amply borne out by work which we have done since.
The issues of profitability and employers' ability to pay have been raised only infrequently at schedule 11 hearings, which suggests that in practice they have not had much influence on awards. As I understand it, the new clause would limit the CAC's discretion in determining whether terms and conditions are unfavourable by excluding the specific matters referred to from being taken into account. In other words, it would make it even more difficult than it is at present for matters such as profitability and ability to pay to be given any recognition at all. Therefore, we think that there is a contradiction between what the hon. Gentleman was feeling towards in Committee and what he says in the new clause.
I was asked what we intended to do about the low paid. I do not believe that we can protect the low paid simply by legislation. What will help the low paid more than anything else is a higher level of prosperity and a higher standard of living from the whole of society. That is the only way in which we shall raise the standard of living of the low paid. Like schedule 11, these measures so often tend to act as a wage-push inflator, which has precisely the opposite effect to that of trying to keep down inflation which is the one thing from which the low paid suffer more than any other group.
Both I and the Government believe that unless there is forthcoming evidence, which we have not yet had, from the further consultation which is taking place, we should carry through the abolition of schedule 11 in its entirety. Other countries have been a good deal more successful in


raising their standard of living than we have in recent years. I believe that we shall do better if we concentrate on improving productivity rather than on passing legislation which has impeded collective bargaining and has in many ways brought more problems upon the low paid and collective bargaining machinery generally than it has solved.

Mr. John Grant: This has been an extremely useful debate. In my opening remarks, I said that I did not intend to dwell unduly on the terms of the two new clauses and that it was the amendment which carried the weight of our arguments. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that with regard to new clause 9 there are a couple of drafting deficiencies. However, we were concerned about amendment No. 106, which preserves the status quo so that the recognised terms and conditions provisions and the general provisions of the schedule are maintained intact. All Labour Members who have spoken supported the retention of the schedule in its entirety. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) was thoughtful and constructive and obviously well researched. She spoke about incentives to low-paid workers and the effect on them of the repeal of the schedule.
10.30 pm
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and Kettering (Mr. Homewood) are former trade union officers, and they both drew on their respective experiences to show that this schedule has been of considerable benefit, not only to low-paid workers, but in resolving and avoiding disputes. The Government constantly say that they wish to achieve that, but it will be thrown away as a consequence of their action.
It would not be sensible for Labour Members to expect much response from the Government to what they say, any more than the trade union movement can expect much response from the Government. Relations and consultation with the trade union must be almost at their lowest ebb. In so far as the Secretary of State occasionally tries to build bridges, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister constantly blows them up. But if the Secretary of State will not listen to Labour Members or the trade move-

ment he should listen hard to what the employers' organisations have been telling him. In respect of this clause, and particularly in respect of the recognised terms and conditions, the employers' organisations have made it clear that they want that part of the schedule retained.
When the Secretary of State gave a breakdown of the responses to his suggestion that further representations should be received, he said that 10 organisations were against total abolition. Apparently those 10 organisations were individual companies. Ten individual companies hardly represent a substantial body of opinion. If the Secretary of State will not listen to the employers' organisations, perhaps he will listen to the fairly few—there are a few—voices from his Back Benches.
In my opening remarks I referred to the speech by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), who expressed his anxieties in Committee. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made a thoughtful and helpful contribution and drew on first-hand industrial relations experience. He was particularly concerned about the furniture industry.
When the Secretary of State replied to the debate, his response was even less convincing than that of the Under-Secretary of State in Committee. He suggested that the schedule had not eliminated pockets of low pay. That contradicts the independent research which I and my hon. Friends quoted earlier. He then quoted a letter from the TUC which he received today, as I did. The quote was intended to be selective, but I then shot his fox because, having received the same letter, I persuaded him to read on. He could have read even further. He could have read the concluding paragraph, which is relevant and which shows the TUC's position. It states:
In conclusion, schedule 11 has proved very valuable in providing a measure of minimum protection for the low-paid relative to other comparable employees in the same industry and district. It has supported the operation of establishing negotiating machinery and has been a means of enabling the peaceful resolution of potential disputes over many undoubted pay anomalies. In view of these factors the Government should not proceed with the repeal of schedule 11. Such a move would be difficult to justify and the joint opposition from unions and employers demonstrate their deep concern at the prospect of certain employers undercutting their competitors, and the potential


for the exploitation of many employees that the repeal of the schedule will have.
That puts the TUC's view clearly and concisely. I do not think that the Secretary of State will find much comfort in quoting anything that the TUC has to say on the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Warwick university industrial relations research unit's work. He said that the Department of Employment had carried out some further study of its own. He said that it was likely that there were certain exclusions from the unit's analysis and that it was based on a small sample. It is so vague to talk of something being "likely". We do not know the basis of the Department's research. There is no published document. We have been given no details. However, the work of an independent unit has been published and it has been widely quoted. All that the right hon. Gentleman can offer is the vague suggestion that a further effort has been made to produce the evidence that we asked for in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the disruption of pay structures. I have already given the TUC's view and the various items of independent evidence that suggest that schedule 11 has been helpful to pay structures and to industrial relations generally.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that pay policy had been circumvented. He seemed to suggest that we accepted that the main use of the schedule had been on behalf of higher-paid workers. That has not been suggested by the Opposi-

tion. I said that it would be idle to pretend that it had not been beneficial to some groups of higher-paid workers. I stressed that the primary aim and use of the schedule had been to seek to eliminate—it has eliminated—pockets of low pay.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that claims under schedule 11 had fallen away since pay policy ended. He should have presented us with the figures. He should not make such vague assertions. We have heard about the further consultations that are taking place and the further representations that are being received. However, it is pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to move from his stance. He has sold out on this issue to the hawks in the Cabinet. We know that his own view is that this measure will not be helpful to good industrial relations and that it will strike a blow against low-paid workers, the vulnerable and often poorly organised workers. He has not been able to carry with him his Cabinet colleagues.

Earlier this evening there was a phoney vote. It was preceded by a debate that centred on the Government Benches. We shall divide the House on this issue and it will not be a phoney vote. We shall be voting on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers who will be disadvantaged by the change that the Government propose to make by repealing the schedule.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 309.

Division No. 260]
AYES
[10.38 pm


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Adams, Allen
Campbell, lan
Deakins, Eric


Allaun, Frank
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis
Dempsey, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cant, R. B.
Dewar, Donald


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dixon, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cartwright, John
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Douglas, Dick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Coleman, Donald
Dubs, Alfred


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Conlan, Bernard
Dunnett, Jack


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cook, Robin F.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Cowans, Harry
Eadie, Alex


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Eastham, Ken


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Crowther, J. S.
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Cryer, Bob
English, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Evans, John (Newton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dalyell, Tam
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Davidson, Arthur
Faulds, Andrew


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Field, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Fitt, Gerard




Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sandelson, Neville


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sever, John


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Forrester, John
McMahon, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Foster, Derek
McNally, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McNamara, Kevin
Short, Mrs Renée


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McWilliam, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marks, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Snape, Peter


Golding, John
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Soley, Clive


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mikardo, Ian
Stoddart, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stott, Roger


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, R. C, (Soton, Itchen)
Straw, Jack


Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Morton, George
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Home Robertson, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Homewood, William
Newens, Stanley
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tilley, John


Horam, John
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Huckfield, Les
O'Halloran, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Janner, Hon Greville
Park, George
Welsh, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Parry, Robert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Race, Reg
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Kinnock, Neil
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamond, James
Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Leighton, Ronald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodall, Alec


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wright, Sheila


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton East)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)



Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. James Tinn and


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roper, John
Mr. James Hamilton.


McElhone, Frank
Ryman, John



NOES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clegg, Sir Walter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham
Cockeram, Eric


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Michael
Brittan, Leon
Cope, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter
Corrie, John


Arnold, Tom
Brotherton, Michael
Costain, A. P.


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Crouch, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Antony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bell, Sir Ronald
Budgen, Nick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Bulmer, Esmond
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Butcher, John
Dunlop, John


Best, Keith
Butler, Hon Adam
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Durant, Tony


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eggar, Timothy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Paul
Elliott, Sir William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Churchill, W. S.
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boyson, Dr Rhoo
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bradford, Rev
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony







Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
McQuarrie, Albert
Royle, Sir Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Major, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Marland, Paul
Scott, Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marlow, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shersby, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Goodhart, Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gow, Ian
Mellor, David
Speed, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speller Tony


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Spence, John


Greenway, Harry
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, lain


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Stanley, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Montgomery, Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John
Stevens, Martin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hannam, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Stokes, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Tapsell, Peter


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Hawksley, Warren
Myles, David
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hayhoe, Barney
Neale, Gerrard
Tebbit, Norman


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Donald


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Normanton, Tom
Thornton, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Nott, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Trippier, David


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Trotter, Neville


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Howells, Geraint
Parkinson, Cecil
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waddington, David


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Penhaligon, David
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Percival, Sir Ian
Waller, Gary


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
Ward, John


Kilfedder, James A.
Pollock, Alexander
Warren, Kenneth


Kimball, Marcus
Porter, George
Watson, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Lamont, Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wheeler, John


Lang, Ian
Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


Lawrence, Ivan
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wickenden, Keith


Lawson, Nigel
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Lee, John
Rathbone, Tim
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wolfson, Mark


Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Renton, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rhodes James, Robert
Younger, Rt Hon George


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyell, Nicholas
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


McCusker, H.
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Anthony Berry


Macfarlane, Neil
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS

'( ) (1) This Clause applies to any agreement other than a union membership agreement within the meaning of section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.
(2) In this Clause—
contractor" means a person by whom goods are to be supplied or services provided under an agreement to which this Clause applies, and
relevant employee" means an employee of a contractor or of any other person to whom any part of the performance of an agreement is sub-contracted or delegated or of any person who supplies goods or services for the performance of the agreement.
(3) In so far as any provision in an agreement purports to impose an obligation on a contractor to require that any relevant employee shall belong to a trade union that provision shall be unlawful.
(4) In so far as any provision in an agreement purports, on the ground that any relevant employee does not belong to a trade union:

(a) to modify or revoke any provision in that agreement which would, but for that ground, confer a benefit on the contractor;
(b) to impose any obligation or liability on the contractor which would not but for that ground have been imposed; or
(c) to make any obligation or liability on the part of the contractor more onerous than that which would but for that ground have been applicable,

that provision shall be unlawful.'.—[Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we are to take new clause 11—Discrimination against contracting parties

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not want to delay the House for too long, although the new clauses raise matters of very considerable importance and principle. They relate to the possibility of what I would call the institution of the closed shop by the back door.
I am profoundly antipathetic to closed shops, wherever they may appear, whether they are closed shops of company secretaries, of surveyors, of accountants, or even, dare I say it, of lawyers. I find it profoundly undesirable that one should be obliged to belong to a particular institution as the price of prac-

tising one's trade or profession. As far as I am aware, we do not have a professional organisation for Members of Parliament. I would fight to the death against the institution of any such organisation and be the last to join it.
But, having said that, I accept—although I recognise that a number of my hon. Friends do not—the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is not a matter of practical politics today to outlaw the closed shop. I hope that the day will come when it will be possible, but I certainly accept that that is not a practicality at the present time.
The Bill introduces certain important safeguards to the operation of the closed shop. I cite essentially two. First, it seeks to put an end to what one might broadly call the SLADE-type blackmail operation—the technique developed by SLADE in particular to frogmarch employees of particular businesses into SLADE against their wishes, via pressure, and, indeed, blackmail, on their employers. The Bill seeks—and I am delighted to see it—to put an end to that sort of gross impropriety, for that is what it is. The Bill also seeks to ensure that new closed shops cannot be imposed without prior consultation of, and a decisive vote in favour from, all those concerned by their introduction. That too is a major step forward, and I welcome it.
There is a substantial hole in the significantly improved provisions which govern the closed shop. My new clauses are designed to deal with the oversight, that monopoly, or near-monopoly, customers can oblige employers in other businesses to bully their employees into a union against their employees' wishes. In defiance of the Bill's provisions, they can make it a condition of a contract that is offered to tender that companies bidding for that contract may employ only those who are members of specified trade unions. That is quite indefensible. It is surprising that the Bill does not deal with that. However, these two new clauses are designed to cover that hole.
New clause 10 makes it unlawful for a customer to write an obligation into his contract with the supplier that employees working at the customer's place of work should belong to a specified or variety of specified trade unions.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: One of a variety.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I accept that correction. New clause 11 is essentially supplementary. It is designed to prevent a customer from getting round the terms of clause 10 by limiting invitations to tender to those firms that have given an undertaking in advance to employ exclusively unionised labour.
How widespread is the problem? We have no certain knowledge. However, it is too widespread for comfort. I understand that among Labour-controlled authorities such activity is common practice. Unfortunately, it is, on occasion, practised in Conservative-controlled local authorities. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is also common practice among nationalised industries. In addition, I am led to understand that this practice is indulged in by at least one organ of government.
I should like to quote briefly the types of clause that may be written into a contract. The contractor is expected to sign such a contract as a condition of undertaking work for Labour-controlled and, alas, occasionally Tory-controlled local authorities. The following clauses are included:
All contractors or sub-contractors' employees must be fully paid up members of an appropriate trade union and in the case of craftsmen to a trade union which is representative of the craft work they are performing under the contract.
The contractor shall ensure that all labour whether of the contractor or of any subcontractor of the contractor used on the site shall be members of an appropriate trade union approved in writing by the engineer.
I should like to stress the phrase "The contractor shall ensure." The employer is obliged to frogmarch employees into a union, regardless of whether they wish to be members. It goes on:
All manual grade employees employed by the contractor and assigned to work on sites within the group must comply with the following at all times:

(a) Be fully paid-up members of the trade union appropriate to the trade they practise (being out of benefit automatically precludes access to the site).
(b) Carry personal union cards showing proof of the above."

That is typical of the sort of clauses that are written into contracts by local authorities.
11 pm
I should like to cite a couple of instances from the nationalised industries. British Airways, August 1979:
The Contractor and Sub-contractors shall employ only Trade Union labour under this contract.
British Leyland, September 1979:
All labour employed by the contractor on site must belong to an appropriate trade union and a similar condition will be imposed on all nominated or domestic sub-contractors.
The third category which, in some ways, I find the most horrific of the lot is the Scottish Development Agency—an agency of the Government which has got into the habit of adding a clause to building work tenders stating that the main contractors will agree with all unions on site to collect union dues. What in God's name is a Government organ doing getting into this sort of malarky?
If ever there was evidence of a need for new clauses of the type that I have submitted, the fact that an agency of government is getting into the business of frogmarching people into a trade union without a moment's consultation is sufficient proof thereof. I find this technique of creeping extension of the closed shop profoundly offensive in itself.
But that is not all. I wish to draw the attention of the House to another implication of the Bill if we pass it without my new clauses. Under the Bill as it stands, the supplier can still be bullied into ordering the employees into a union as the price of obtaining a contract from one of these customers in the public or semi-public sector.
Also under the Bill as it stands the employer in question will not have been able to ballot his employees to ascertain their willingness to join one of the appropriate trade unions. The contract says that he must ensure that they belong; the question of ballot does not arise. Therefore, the employer will not have a defence against a claim for unfair dismissal if any of those employees refuses to join the union. Indeed, he will not even be able to require the customer, who has imposed this obligation upon him, to take his part in bearing the burden of paying the bill for a claim which would be bound to be found against him for unfair dismissal as a result of his falling in with the customer's wishes and orders in that respect. That is not only utterly paradoxical it is


almost absurd. I do not think that we can allow the Bill to pass in this form.
I am led to understand—my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that it has been suggested that contractors who are concerned about the matter might make it a condition of membership of their respective trade associations that no one belonging to the association would agree to sign a contract that included these clauses. Apart from the fact that this would be in breach of the restrictive trade practices legislation, it is a most inappropriate and improper suggestion for a Government Department to make to contractors that they should get together to require the members of their trade or profession to stand aside from any contracts that include these clauses because the Government find it embarassing to outlaw the clauses, as they should be outlawed, under the Bill.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the extreme interest shown in his proposals not only by the Labour Party but also by the Liberal Party when only the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour Party is present?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Those hon. Friends who have watched the activities of Opposition parties during the lifetime of this Parliament regard such attendances as par for the course when matters of great importance to our constituents are under discussion. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the naked emptiness of the Opposition Benches.
I hope that I have demonstrated to my hon. and learned Friend that the Bill, as it stands, is profoundly unsatisfactory in this respect. According to my advice, although my hon. and learned Friend may be able to assure me that this is not the case, there is a flagrant breach between the provisions in this Bill for ascertaining the will and approval of those concerned before a closed shop is extended and the manner in which the customer—a near-monopoly customer—can successfully impose the extension of the closed shop, under the Bill as it stands, in precisely the same way as SLADE did. It is a practice that the Government have rightly sought to eliminate from trade union proceedings.

It is time that this matter was put right. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept the new clauses.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has said but it seems to me that the Government can take action in the area to which he refers without the need for these new clauses. They can do so in two ways. Government Departments and nationalised industries can do so by circular, or possibly by direction, inviting those concerned not to use the clauses to which my hon. Friend has adverted. Similar action can be taken in respect of local authorities by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment also sending a circular.
This habit obviously grew up during the time of the Labour Government when they were seeking a round-about manner by which they could utilise the closed shop and give it further powers. A great deal, it seems to me, can be done without the need for legislation. I am not derogating in any way from the remarks of my hon. Friend in moving his new clauses that seem to have a great deal to commend them, but a great deal can be done by the practical type of assistance to which I have referred.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting, but does my hon. and learned Friend seriously suggest that the republic of South Yorkshire would respond to the type of billet-doux which my hon. and learned Friend suggests should be sent out by the Secretary of State for the Environment? I do not have quite the same confidence in the republic of South Yorkshire as he seems to have.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not suggest that there will be success in every instance, but there will be in many instances. The right climate might be created, although it might be better carried to effect by what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall not detain the House for long. My shortest speech lasted four minutes and my aim is to beat that record. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I am fortunate—or unfortunate—to have in my constituency a nationalised industry, the British Steel


Corporation which operates a closed shop on its 16,000 employees. Scunthorpe has a Labour-controlled local authority.
Last summer I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State following a representation from a sub-contractor. He and his employees were morally opposed to a closed shop, but, according to the circular letter from the BSC, no employee of the subcontractor would go on to the BSC site unless he joined a union.
The Scunthorpe borough council has sought to impose a similar closed shop restriction on the employees of its subcontractors. That is clearly an imposition of the closed shop by the back door. We may oppose the closed shop—and I am totally opposed to it and any extension of it—but we must recognise that it is part of industrial relations for the time being. However, we must all agree that a closed shop cannot be imposed without the support of a majority of the work force.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said, there is no opportunity for obtaining sufficient support from the work force of a sub-contractor. As my hon. and learned Friend was unable to meet the point when I wrote to him last year, the new clause provides an opportunity to put right a grave injustice. I hope that the House will consider it seriously.

Mr. Marlow: I had misgivings about the Bill at its conception, but I am pleased that it is now a much better Bill. It performs almost 90 per cent. of what anybody could wish it to perform. That is more than most Bills achieve, and I congratulate the Secretary of State.
However, I am a little sad that people have said that when they apply for contracts they have been told that they must use union labour. Search though they may through the Government's White Paper and Bill, they can see nothing that will stop that. It would be an even better Bill if the new clause were accepted. I hope that the Government, bearing in mind the strong advocacy which we have recently heard and the cogent case that has been put forward, will accept it.
11.15 pm
It is fundamental to liberty that we should not force somebody to take on workers only where a closed shop agreement is in operation. It is unacceptable that contractors must agree to closed shops

before they can take on work. My hon. and learned Friend will probably sympathise with that view.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford as a result of an intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). Circulars may go round in circles, but I believe that if a concept is enshrined in law it is far more effective. For that reason, I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.

Mr. Den Dover: I speak in support of the new clauses because I feel that unless we give a lead to employers we will find them agreeing with the unions—as is often the case—that, even though such clauses as these are not in contracts, informal agreements will be made between managements and unions that there will be 100 per cent. closed shops on sites.
We must give a lead to the employers' organisations and make sure that a clause such as this is put into effect. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give an assurance that we will turn back the tide and make sure that there is freedom to join a union, or not to join one, on the construction sites of this country. Workers employed by contractors and sub-contractors do not enjoy that freedom at the moment. It is important that we work towards its establishment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Maybew): This has been an interesting—if a trifle one-sided—debate and some important points have been made by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) described what his new clauses seek to prevent as the practice of advancing the closed shop by means of creeping extension and by means of the back door. I subscribe to that view, though I am glad that he believes that the Bill is realistic in recognising that to outlaw the closed shop at present would be unlawful. On the most obvious libertarian grounds, I share his distaste for the closed shop and I believe that virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends think likewise.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend believes that there are, nevertheless, important safeguards in the Bill to protect


the interests of those who are affected by closed shop agreements. He rightly points to the important provisions regarding the activities of SLADE and also to the provisions for an 80 per cent. "Yes" vote in a ballot before a closed shop agreement can be made. I believe that those are important safeguards for those who are affected by closed shops.
My hon. Friend describes as an oversight in the Bill the omission of any prohibition to deal with what I think are different circumstances, namely, the inclusion of terms and conditions for subcontractors that require sub-contractors to employ union members only. The distinction, I believe, is one of scale.
If a closed shop agreement is made with a trade union it means that all who work for the employer thereafter must belong to a specified union. The difference of scale in what we are discussing is that a sub-contractor who accedes to these conditions undertakes that at that site, or for the purpose of that contract alone, he will employ nobody who is not a member of a union. The scale, therefore, is limited to the ambit of the contract. To that extent, it is substantially different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford suggested that there was a conflict between our policy on safeguards for closed shop agreements in the Bill and the implicit acceptance of the present law which permits the practice about which he complains. We see difficulties, particularly in the sphere of immunities, in acceding to the new clauses. We believe that there is considerable scope for voluntary action in restraint of these practices, but we cannot at the moment accept the argument that there is a case for amending the law, and I shall say why later.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) indicated that the Government can do a great deal to discourage what we are talking about by their influence in the public sector. I believe that to be right. I hope that the Government, through their various Departments, will act upon that advice. I see no reason why a Government who take the view that I have described about the closed shop as an institution should encourage it through these contractual provisions.
I recall the outline of the constituency case raised last summer by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). That was a case where no employee of a sub-contractor could go on to a site at all.
I acknowledge that this is an offensive practice. The difficulty that we face is that we have on the stocks the Green Paper that is intended towards the end of the year to open up the whole question of immunities.
If these new clauses were to be incorporated in the Bill, we should immediately come to the question of what sanction could be applied. These clauses are incorporated in contracts principally because trade unions have pressed the main employers to put them in, not always for reasons of recruitment, but sometimes for proper reasons connected with ensuring that their members work on construction sites only with others who are trained to do the job properly and who observe proper safety standards and so on. It is pressure by trade unions, for whatever reason, that has led to the clauses being incorporated.
If, as the new clauses propose, we were to make them unlawful, we should have to consider the practical consequences. Would the legislation by itself be enough to cause trade unions to desist from the pressure that they have hitherto exerted? It is plain that the answer to that question must be "No". They would seek, by covert or perhaps by overt means, to ensure that the position remained unchanged.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if this proposal were brought into law contractors would abide by that law? As there have not been any cases where the contracting industry as a whole has refused to accept the law, would that not deal with the problem?

Mr. Mayhew: The clause says that the provisions shall be void. The effect is that they will not be enforceable. Let us suppose that contractors in the public sector will comply with the clause—I think that they will—but I believe that trade unions would seek to enforce the closed shop in this context. If we were to make the provisions effective, we would have to say that a union which took industrial action in support of that policy would be


deprived of its immunities. I can see the logic of that, but we should not take that decision until we have opened up the whole question of trade union immunities. We should not do it in advance of the Green Paper.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I cannot help feeling that my hon. and learned Friend is making a meal of this. The new clause is designed to outlaw the inclusion of particular statements in a contract put out to tender. The obligation is entirely on the employer—it has nothing to do with the trade unions—not to include these clauses. I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend addresses himself to the question whether it is seriously to be argued that employers, whether they are Labour-controlled local authorities or nationalised industries, would ignore or defy such a provision.
Will my hon. and learned Friend clarify one point that he made earlier? He said that the Government would exert their influence to discourage that practice along the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). Are we to assume—and this has an important bearing on the conclusion that we shall draw from the clause—that the Government, as the sole shareholder in, for example, British Leyland or British Aerospace, will take action to ensure that such conditions as I have quoted no longer appear in the contracts put out by those corporations?

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend knows that that is not a question that I, with responsibilities in a junior capacity for the Department of Employment, can answer. It is a matter for the Departments concerned. I hope that Government Departments would seek to discourage the use of that practice for the reasons that my hon. Friend has indicated.
I am not persuaded that legislation on the lines of new clauses 10 and 11 would be either effective or desirable. We should look first to voluntary action because the experience of making closed shop agreements void in the 1971 Act does not lead us to go headlong into making new legislation providing that a certain approach should be unlawful. Making an undesirable condition void does not necessarily get rid of the undesirable influence that it is intended to exert. I do not think that it would do so in this instance.
Proscribing discrimination in tendering arrangements, as in new clause 11, would not necessarily prevent the contractor concerned from being discriminated against later. It is often extremely difficult for a disappointed tenderer to prove, perhaps when confronted with a dissembling main employer with the real reason for his action, that the rejection of his tender was in breach of the new clauses. Conversely, someone whose tender had been properly rejected on commercial grounds might suppose, or more damagingly might contend, that discrimination was the true reason. One thing that we are earnestly called upon not to do by businesses throughout the country is to land them in unnecessary, time-consuming and expensive litigation, which the new clause might do.
The new clause could increase pressure upon employers not to use contractors at all, and that would help no one, least of all the contractors and those who work for them. There is great scope in the first instance for voluntary action by the employers and their associations, perhaps with the Confederation of British Industry taking a lead. For our part, we intend that the code of practice on the institution and operation of closed shop agreements, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to issue pursuant to clause 2 of the Bill when it takes effect, shall give guidance in that area.
There are great difficulties involved when we examine the sanction by which the policy of these new clauses could be implemented. As I indicated, the reason why they are proposed is largely because of trade union practice. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford is right in saying that in the public sector legislation making these conditions unlawful would be heeded by employers. But the clauses impose no sanction upon the employer for continuing to incorporate those conditions. Unless we remove the immunities of section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 there can be no sanction upon a trade union which insists that sub-contractors should send only its union members onto a site and takes industrial action to enforce that. There is no reference in either of the clauses to trades union immunities. The wider question of immunities must be


dealt with in the round and not piecemeal at this stage.

Mr. John Townend: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that what he suggests will happen in many cases will not? When I was leader of the Humberside county council, we took over a situation where the Labour group had inserted these conditions in all contracts. We insisted on taking them out, because they were against our policy. We never had any future policy on those contracts. We just took the conditions out of the contract documents with no further trouble.

Mr. Mayhew: That is satisfactory and devoutly to be desired. But what my hon. Friend has just said is encouraging in that it leads one to suppose that there is hope for the voluntary approach. What I am saying is that we understand why the new clauses have been tabled. We share the dislike for closed shop agreements being extended by these back door means, but we do not believe that it is likely to be effective, or that it would be desirable at present, to seek to achieve that end by means of changing the law. What will be the position following publication of the Green Paper remains to be seen.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting my hon. and learned Friend again, but I detect that he may be coming to the conclusion of his arguments. Before he concludes, I hope that he will deal with the question of what happens if the Bill remains as it is and the employer is obliged to frogmarch his employees into a union against their wishes, without the provision for a ballot, when one or more refuses to join and sues for unfair dismissal. What sort of defence has the employer in those circumstances?

Mr. Mayhew: I intend to deal with that question. I understand the point which my hon. Friend makes. He says that there will not have been time to have gone through the 80 per cent. ballot procedures and, therefore, an employer will have no defence to a claim for unfair dismissal. But the position is not as simple as that. Unhappily, it is more complicated, like most things connected with this type of legislation.
Before determining whether and how the Bill changes the legal position of con-

tractors and their employees, it is necessary to know the full facts of the situation. For example, when deciding which relevant sections of the 1978 Act, as amended by this Bill, apply, it will be important to know whether a contractor is party to a closed shop agreement himself or whether he applies another employer's closed shop agreement to his own employees.
The new clauses do not directly affect the unfair dismissal provisions one way or the other, and some different amendment would be needed to meet the point. I have well in mind the anxieties of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, which has seen my right hon. Friend and has helpfully set out its own anxieties.
I recognise that this is a practice which has increased, and that it is indulged in by public authorities, nationalised authorities and large private companies. The issues raised are complicated, and we believe that at present it is not right to change the law. I hope that I have indicated the sympathy with which the Government view these new clauses, and I hope that I have indicated why at present we believe that it would not meet the ends which I and my hon. Friends wish to serve by acceding to them.
It is not a satisfactory situation that these practices continue on the present scale. There is scope for their restriction by voluntary means. I hope that I have been able to say enough to persuade my hon. Friend that at present it would be untimely to press the new clauses. If, unhappily, he decides that he must do so, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not see fit to support them.

Mr. Harold Walker: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I have been provoked by the Under-Secretary. I did not want to exacerbate his difficulties with his rebellious Back Benchers; the Government have had sufficient agony for one day. However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman challenges me, goads me and provokes me, I shall certainly speak. I had thought that hon. Members would have been anxious to get under the eiderdown.
The hon. and learned Member talks about this being a one-sided debate. He could have fooled me. I thought that we had been listening to a very two-sided debate the whole day, with the two sides


or the argument being on the Tory side of the House. That is where the debate has been.
There can be few spectacles more nauseating and absurd than to have lawyers condemning the closed shop. That is the limit. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) threw in a cheap sneer about the Labour Government deliberately encouraging the practices that have been referred to in the debate. That was absolute nonsense. He cannot produce a scrap of evidence to support his remark. I am astonished that an hon. and learned Member who earns a lucrative living outside this House by practising in the courts should be capable of making wild allegations without any supporting argument or evidence.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I think I am right in saying that none of the Conservative-controlled local authorities has a contract of this kind. It is only Labour-controlled authorities and nationalised industries, at least as to 90 per cent. of the cases. Incidentally, while I am on my feet, may I correct the record? I am in this House now and the Bar is almost a thing of the past.

Mr. Walker: I accept what the hon. and learned Member says and hope that I have not unfairly misrepresented him.
On the more substantial point, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the challenge I threw out, because he said that the practices to which he referred, and which have been complained about, were encouraged by the Labour Government. It is no answer to say that it is nationalised industries and Labour-controlled local authorities which impose these obligations on outside contractors. That does not answer the point. The hon. and learned Member has not produced a scrap of evidence to support his point that the Labour Government deliberately encouraged the practices complained of.
I must point out to Tory Members that it is not only Labour-controlled authorities which are involved here. It is local authorities, public sector employers, nationalised industries and many private sectors employers. They have recognised lists of tenderers and for a whole variety of reasons they exclude from that list people who would wish to be on it. The reasons include the fact that such people do not satisfy one or other of the many

conditions and qualifications laid down. We have not heard criticism of any of those practices.
Government Back Benchers have selected one qualification that is imposed by some authorities and decided to attack that. This is not a new practice at all. It has gone on for many years. It has gone on, with public sector employers very often because, probably, they want to be satisfied that the people to whom they are giving work are proper employers, offering decent terms and conditions of employment and are not employing sweated labour, or otherwise offending against the recognised terms and conditions of employment.
I should be delighted to have a wider discussion, following our earlier debate, on the extent to which workers' organisations and workers as individuals should have the right to have recognised terms and conditions of employment applied to themselves. The anxiety that that should be the case has been expressed, not merely by my hon. Friends, not merely by the trade unions, but by employers' organisations too, which are anxious about unfair, undercutting practices which seek to derogate from recognised terms and conditions of employment.

Mr. Marlow: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has got things the wrong way round. What people are concerned about is that the employing authority should employ people who do not work under the same restrictive practices as those under which they are working so that they will be working more efficiently and effectively and getting better wages. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of, because it will explode a lot of the humbug uttered by himself and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Walker: That is an extraordinary argument. The idea that local authorities and public and private sector employers who impose the condition about which complaints have been made do so because they want to protect worse working practices rather than better working practices is the most ridiculous argument that I have heard advanced from the Conservative Benches.

Mr. John Evans: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Conservative reactionaries that one of the major concerns of local authorities is to ensure that


no one who operates under lump labour conditions will work for the local authority? Will he make it clear to Conservative Members that people who operate under lump labour conditions are generally people who avoid their contributions to society in income tax and national insurance payments? That is why Labour-controlled authorities are determined not to employ people of that ilk.

Mr. Walker: Of course. But the issue is wider than the particular group to which my hon. Friend refers. To attack the practice of local authorities and other employers insisting that those who submit tenders shall employ trade union labour is to attack the principle embodied in the fair wages resolution. Some Conservative Members—and to some degree this is reflected by the Government in their approach to schedule 11—would like to repeal the fair wages resolution, which has stood on the statute book for over 80 years. A public sector employer should set decent standards and should show a good example in employment practices by using employers who observe recognised terms and conditions.

Mr. John Townend: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many firms that do not operate a closed shop employ union labour and pay top rates—sometimes even above those of firms which operate a closed shop?

Mr. Walker: Of course I accept that. I am merely saying that the employing authority wants to be satisfied that decent terms and conditions of employment are observed when it places its contracts. One way of doing that is to require those firms with which it places contracts to employ trade union labour. That is not an unreasonable safeguard. If there is an alternative safeguard, we should be prepared to examine it, but no alternative has been proposed and no concern or interest has been shown by Conservative Members to ensure that workers have decent terms and conditions of employment. While the principle objects of the attack have been Labour-controlled local authorities and public sector employers, the new clause would apply to all employers, including private employers.
I can give many examples. The Minister referred to SLADE. SLADE insists

on putting a stamp on its work. That work will not be processed unless it includes a stamp. In Committee I recalled that my father worked in the felt hat manufacturing industry in Denton, Lancashire. In those days Denton was wholly dependent on the felt hat manufacturing industry. Hat manufacturers have not been criticised in the House. They have not indulged in militant action because they are reasonable and moderate. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is present because he will know of the town of Denton and its former dependence on hat manufacturing.
My father was a hat manufacturer. In those days one could not obtain a job in Denton unless one wore a felt hat. One would not be served in a shop unless one wore a felt hat. Every employer in Denton, whether or not he was connected with the hat manufacturing industry, displayed a large plate at the entrance to his premises saying that no one would be admitted unless he wore a felt hat. Every felt hat manufacturer in Denton displayed a sticker. I hope that some Conservative Members who wear felt hats will look at the hat band when they next buy a felt hat. If it has been made in Denton there will be a sticker saying that the hat has been made by trade union labour.
In those days the felt hat manufacturing workers tried to encourage everyone who wore a felt hat to buy only a hat that bore the little stamp inside it. A retailer would find that he could not sell hats if they did not have that stamp. He would say to the manufacturer who employed non-union labour and could not affix the sticker "I am sorry but I cannot sell your hats. I do not want to place a further order." If the clause had been enacted at that time, he would have committed an offence. He would have been exposed to legal action. That is the nonsense that the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is seeking to propagate with his daft new clauses.

Mr. Michael Brown: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he opposes the clause because he feels that public authorities and local authorities should have some assurance from the employing subcontractor that his employee is being paid proper wages. Will he tell the sub-contractor in my constituency, who is utterly


dependent upon the British Steel Corporation, what will happen to his employee if his, the right hon. Gentleman's, argument holds water? The result will be that the sub-contractor will be unable to tender and the employee of the subcontractor will be without a job.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the way in which I am presenting the argument. I do not pretend to be especially articulate or clear-minded, at this time of night. I may be misleading the hon. Gentleman. In advancing my view, I was explaining why the practices of local authorities, other public sector employers and some private sector employers have existed and developed.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I find it equally difficult to explain to the electrical wholesaler in my constituency, who is a member of the Conservative Party but despite that a friend of mine, why British Rail refuses to allow him to tender for the supply of electrical equipment. He does not employ non-union labour. That has nothing to do with it. It is because British Rail has a list containing the names of those from whom it invites and accepts tenders. It is a limited list. Try as he might, my friend cannot get on the list. He cannot discover why he cannot get on it.
That does not apply only to British Rail. It applies to Conservative-controlled and Labour-controlled local authorities and a range of large private sector organisations. They have lists of those from whom they will invite tenders. If a person is not on the list, he does not stand a cat in hell's chance of being able to submit a tender. There are those who feel that they can submit competitive tenders to private sector companies. However, they cannot get on the lists. They are not told why and they cannot understand why.
Why should Conservative Back Benchers select one qualification for attack and not all the others? It would be more helpful if the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) would dig into the reasons why an employer is refused leave to submit a tender to a private sector organisation, the acceptance of which could lead to additional employment It is daft to select one qualification in isolation.
I said that I had not intended to intervene. However, I have been lured into making what I fear is an over-long speech late at night. I apologise to the House for letting that happen. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not provoke us into getting involved in private family squabbles within the Tory Party. If he wants us to do so, I shall be happy to oblige, as on this occasion, on any other occasion before the night is out.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The debate has been widened. I am pleased to note that the Labour Party is alive and kicking—kicking anyway. Some of us were beginning to think it had finally vanished from view. I had no idea that we should get on to the intricacies of felt hats, and I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) down that line.
The point that the right hon. Gentleman has missed is that one of the purposes of the Bill, one which I think all my hon. and right hon. Friends strongly support, is to ensure that we do not witness extensions of the closed shop against the wishes of those who are coralled into it. It is to deal with that aspect of the issue that the new clauses were tabled.
I listened with great care to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State's reply. He was, as always, temperate and persuasive, but I regret to have to tell him that I am not wholly convinced. The objection he seemed to advance was a "Catch 22" objection. He said that these clauses raised the problem of immunities, and he wanted to deal with the whole issue of immunities in a Green Paper; so, he said, it was not appropriate to widen the whole question of immunities at this point. He went on to say that the trouble with the new clauses was that they made no provision for altering the immunities; they simply outlawed the inclusion of this wording in contracts. It is the second point which is decisive and the foundation of the desirability of the clauses.
I can see that if we were to introduce at this stage new clauses which further raised the whole issue of trade union immunities, substantial additional problems would arise, but these clauses simply say that this type of wording in a contract shall be void and unlawful. The


onus is on the tenderer to desist from the inclusion of these offensive words in the contracts he advances. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) pointed out that this has been done following a change in control of the local authority, and it went through perfectly smoothly without any trouble.
I am grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said about the way in which he and my right hon. Friends would exercise

their influence to dissuade local authorities and nationalised industries from persisting in this practice, but on balance I think it would be better if we had this provision on the statute book. I therefore feel that I must press the clause, because the Bill would be better for its inclusion.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 217.

Division No. 261]
AYES
[11.52 pm


Alton, David
Gorst, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Marlow, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Penhaligon, David



Butcher, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. Den Dover and


Churchill, W. S.
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Michael Brown.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Major, John


Alexander, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marland, Paul


Alison, Michael
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mellor, David


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gow, Ian
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Blackburn, John
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Moore, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Brinton, Tim
Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Brittan, Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Browne, John (Winchester)
Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Neubert, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Tom
Newton, Tony


Butler, Hon Adam
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Channon, Paul
Kurd, Hon Douglas
Parris, Matthew


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Parry, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pattie, Geoffrey


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Pawsey, James


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Percival, Sir Ian


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Pollock, Alexander


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawson, Nigel
Prior, Rt Hon James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lee, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dunlop, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Raison, Timothy


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rathbone, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Luce, Richard
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Eggar, Timothy
Lyell, Nicholas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliott, Sir William
Macfarlane, Neil
Renton, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McQuarrie, Albert
Ridsdale, Julian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Madel, David
Rifkind, Malcolm




Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wakeham, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stokes, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Hugh
Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Ward, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Shersby, Michael
Thompson, Donald
Wheeler, John


Silvester, Fred
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wickenden, Keith


Speed, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Speller Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spence, John
Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Trotter, Neville



Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS TOR THE NOES:


Squire, Robin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Stanley, John
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Stevens, Martin
Waddington, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF SECRET BALLOTS

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert—
'(b) carrying out an election provided for by the rules of a trade union;
(c) electing a worker who is a member of a trade union to be a representative of other members also employed by his employer; '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 21.

Mr. Mayhew: The effect of these amendments is to enable elections to any position within a union, whether to a post such as shop steward or full-time officer, or to membership of any committee of a union—including the annual conference—to qualify for inclusion in the scheme to which clause I relates, by negative rather than affirmative resolution.
The purpose of amendment No. 21 is to define the words "worker" and "employer", which are not defined in clause 1, in terms of the 1974 Act. When clause 1 was debated in Committee on 29 January, there was a good deal of discussion about elections to the committee of management of a trade union, and to posts held by individuals as employees of trade unions. It was said that the expression "committee of management" would give rise to difficulties, that not a single trade union uses that phrase in its rules, and that those who value the policy of a trade union should be treated as generously as its management.
Members of the Committee also said that the holders of some important union posts, such as that of president of the Transport and General Workers' Union, were not employees of a trade union and that elections to these posts would not qualify under the scheme. It was said that the ballot for shop stewards and conveners—arguably the most important ballot—would not be covered.
I told the Committee that this was a brand new exercise, under the provisions of clause 1. It was an untried exercise, and we thought it best to start in a modest and limited way. However, we accept, as I told the Committee, that the scheme should be enlarged to take account of union officials, union office holders and members of a union policymaking committee. I said that we wished to consider how that could best be expressed.
The purpose of the amendments is to give effect to that. I said that we could not give an assurance that the scheme would cover all the contents of these clauses in the first instance. Members of the Committee have already seen our first proposals for the ballot scheme, which we have sent also for comment to the TUC, the CBI, the certification officer and others with relevant knowledge and expertise.
I have already said that we intend to make a relatively cautious start. We do not think it right to include from the outset elections to a union policy-making body, which usually meets once a year. We propose to confine the scheme to elections to the body that has the permanent executive responsibility of managing the affairs of a trade union, by whatever name it may be known. In the elections to union office we felt able to


go further than we had originally intended. We propose to cover from the outset elections to the positions of president, chairman, secretary and treasurer of a trade union, reardless of whether the officers are its employees.
Although we have not felt able to go initially as far as the Opposition pressed us to do, the amendments will enable us to cover types of elections in the scheme, for example, shop stewards' elections and those to the policy-making committee of a trade union by order, subject to the negative resolution, of this House. My right hon. Friend earlier said that the Government attach great importance to the provisions of Clause 1, which provide for the reimbursement to a trade union of the cost of secret ballots held for the purposes set out in subsection (3). These amendments follow upon the undertakings and indications that I gave in Committee, and will make valuable additions to the ambit of the clause. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 2, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert—
(8) Expressions used in this section and in the 1974 Act have the same meanings in this section as in that Act".—[Mr. Mayhew]

Clause 2

ISSUE BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF CODES OF PRACTICE

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 3, leave out lines 29 to 39.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 92, in page 3, line 32, leave out from "section" to "he" in line 34.

Mr. Walker: Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to make codes of practice, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I have no objection to codes of practice in industrial relations. Indeed, specific provision was made for them in the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Industrial Relations Act 1971. We never quarrelled with the provision then, and we do not quarrel with it now.
The question that concerns us more specifically is who should make the codes

of practice. Consistent with the philosophy that underlies the creation of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, we have repeatedly said that rather than the Government interfering in the day-today management of industrial relations, which has become overdeveloped in recent years, they should withdraw from the scene and leave it to those directly involved and with experience—those in the ACAS council and the interests they represent, and the staff of ACAS. We thought it right that codes of practice, subject to the approval of Parliament, should be drafted and submitted to the House by those directly involved in ACAS. In addition, this clause proposes that the Secretary of State should be empowered to make codes of practice. Frankly, we think that it is daft to have both the Government and ACAS making codes of practice. Our amendment also tilts at the even dafter provision which enables the Secretary of State to override an existing ACAS code. We have been over this ground in Standing Committee and we thought it sufficiently important to argue it again on the Floor of the House.
The provision is daft in several ways. First, ACAS has given invaluable service to industrial relations since it was created in 1975. It must be feeling rather demoralised now by a series of events that have weakened its status, role and prestige. This is yet another step along that road.
Secondly, we thought it right that codes of practice should be produced by ACAS, because it is representative, in its council, of both sides of industry and commerce. For that reason, industry and commerce will feel a sense of commitment towards any decisions or proposals that emerge from that body. In taking over that part of ACAS's role, the Secretary of State will remove the sense of commitment.
Further, we believe that ACAS should draw up the codes of practice because it is the body with expertise and experience in industrial relations. Its staff are better equipped and more authoritative to produce practical, feasible codes of practice. What resources would be available to the Secretary of State? The overwhelming majority of skilled people in this area in his Department have transferred to ACAS and are not now available, because of


the statutory independence of ACAS, to guide and advise the Secretary of State.
For these reasons, we believe it is right that ACAS should produce the codes of practice, and that it is wrong for the Secretary of State to be given the power embodied in subsection (7) of clause 2 to override the ACAS codes of practice. That is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in ACAS in respect of its duties relating to production of a code of practice.
We sought in Standing Committee to require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of ACAS. That is an area on which he might have reflected. I hope that he can inform the House that he has seen the good sense of our proposal. We do not like the idea of the Secretary of State having power to produce codes of practice, but that is not the issue before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has the power under the clause, but we hope that it will be exercised only after ACAS has agreed in discussion that the Secretary of State had seen some point that the service had overlooked.
ACAS might accept that there was some action that the right hon. Gentleman could take that it was unable to carry out. It might agree, although still wishing to express views, that the Government needed to act for political reasons, perhaps because they were committed by their manifesto. That would provide some consolation. As matters stand, the Bill is a retrograde step. It weakens the status of ACAS and conflicts with our view of the manner in which codes of practice should be produced. We do not quarrel with the use of codes of practice in industrial relations. They are more likely to be beneficial than anything written into a statute.
I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he has reflected on the matter and that he is prepared to give the House some assurances.

Mr. Mayhew: There are two reasons why the Government believe that it would be wrong for these amendments to be accepted. Both amendments place what we regard as unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. These restrictions are not placed upon ACAS. There could result conflict-

ing advice in different codes, continuing to exist concurrently with the result that employers, unions and tribunals would be confused.

Amendment No. 91 makes nonsense of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 2(6) to revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued by him. Nothing in the proposals in the Bill is intended to imply any lack of support or lack of confidence in ACAS. I echo and endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about the contribution of the service to industrial relations since its formation. On the other hand, there are areas in which it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice. We propose, for example, that he shall issue codes of practice, after consultation, in relation to the closed shop and in relation to picketing. It is because matters of public policy, as distinct from industrial relations questions, will be involved that it may not be appropriate for ACAS to issue them.

ACAS has a parallel power under schedule 1, paragraph 4, of the Bill to override or supersede, in a code that it produces, the provisions of a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State. The power to supersede a code issued by ACAS that the Bill confers upon the Secretary of State is only the mirror image of that conferred by schedule 1 on ACAS itself. I hope that this illustrates the good faith in this context of the Government.

The Secretary of State is given power by clause 2(6) to revise his codes issued under this clause. This power is given in recognition that industrial relations circumstances are likely to change, for example, because of technological or other developments. However, this power is void if a revised code cannot supersede a previous code. It is important that amendment No. 92 should be resisted. Although he has no current plans, it may be necessary, where circumstances have changed, for the Secretary of State to issue a code that will supersede in whole, or in part, an ACAS code if ACAS is unable or unwilling because of timing, expediency or for any other reason to issue a revised code. There is no suggestion that the Secretary of State will use his power automatically to supersede ACAS codes. It is important that he is required by


clause 2 to consult ACAS both when he issues a code and when he revises it. It is important to remember that in general the Government will be happy for ACAS to fulfil the main code-making role and that they do not intend to produce new or revised codes unless they are convinced that that is necessary and that it cannot be done by ACAS.

The fears prove to be without foundation. The Secretary of State should not have to obtain the consent of ACAS before issuing or revising a code. That would be inappropriate. The ultimate responsibility must be with the Secretary of State. We believe that there are no grounds for anxieties. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

UNREASONABLE EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION FROM TRADE UNION

Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 4, line 38, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Prior.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 5 and 7.

Mr. Harold Walker: I should hate the House to be left with the impression that because we are not, at this hour, dividing the House we acquiesce in the retrograde changes in the Bill. We thought that the original provision was bad enough. The amendment makes it worse. A worker appealing against unfair dismissal by his employer has three months in which to make his application but a worker complaining against his trade union has twice as long. Because we are not dividing the House, it does not mean that we accept the proposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 4, line 42, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.

Mr. Leighton: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 5, leave out lines 12 to 15.
The lines which the amendment proposes to leave out read:

if under the rules of a trade union any person ceases to be a member of the union on the happening of an event specified in the rules, he shall be treated as having been expelled from the union.
I wonder what "an event" is. It is difficult to envisage anything other than that a member should fall behind with his dues. Normally, if a member does that he is lapsed, not expelled. In my union, if a member does not pay his contributions for 13 weeks his membership is lapsed. Are we to assume that such a person will be regarded as if he has been expelled? That would be odd. The officials involved have no secretarial assistance. If a member does not pay his contributions after a given number of weeks a line is struck through his name and he is crossed off the list of members.
It is difficult to think of any other "event". Perhaps a member could resign. Would he be deemed to have been expelled? Each union has its rules. The officials and members are governed by the rules.
In another clause of the Bill there is provision for public funds to ballot members on rules and changes in rules. Would it not be ironic if, after having given public money to change or agree the rules, Parliament should then interfere and seek to override the rules?
We raised these matters in Committee and the Under-Secretary said:
I am impressed by the arguments "—
I do not know whether he is impressed by the arguments now—
that have been put forward, and I think that there are difficulties which perhaps need further examination in regard to amendment No. 35.
That amendment was similar to the one we are now discussing.
Later the Under-Secretary said:
May I say, Mr. Goodhew, so that there be no misunderstanding, that I cannot give any commitment but I give a sincere undertaking to consider the arguments and review the drafting of the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 February 1980; c.c. 498–99.]
Having been given that commitment, we have examined the clause and found that there has been no redrafting. We would like to hear why there has been no redrafting by the Government.

Mr. Mayhew: The amendment deletes a provision in the Bill which deals with


the automatic cessation of union membership under circumstances specified in the union's rules—for example, the lapsing of membership for non-payment of dues.
The Bill specifies that in such a case the member shall be treated as having been expelled. But it is important to remember that the clause prefaces that with the words
for the purposes of this section.
One of the points that impressed me when it was made in Committee was that it was unfair that something that should have been perfectly innocent should give rise to an automatic expulsion. It is only for the purposes of this section that that is said by the Bill to occur. That is an important matter.
The effect of the amendment is such that a case such as that would not necessarily be treated as one of expulsion and is unlikely to be so treated where the rules provide for automatic lapsing of membership. This matter is technical and I am aware of the time. I will, therefore, deal with the matter as quickly as I can.
Different unions have differing rules as to how virtually the same event is to be regarded under the rules. For example, one union may provide for automatic lapsing of membership if subscriptions are a certain period in arrears, while another union's rules may provide that the member is liable in exactly the same circumstances to expulsion.
It would be anomalous if in the former case there was no jurisdiction for a tribunal to deal with an aggrieved person who thought that he had an explanation for his arrears and should not have been treated as no longer a member but that in the latter case he would complain of unreasonable expulsion. We are dealing with clause 3, which relates to a claim against the union for unreasonable expulsion.
It is possible, if the amendment were carried, that a union whose rules provided for automatic lapsing upon non-payment of dues could take advantage of a mistake of its own to effect the exclusion of a member whom those in charge aid not like without running the risk of a

complaint of unreasonable expulsion under the clause.
That could occur where, perhaps through a mistake in the check off, or a positive decision of the union not to accept subscriptions, specified arrears accrued. It may be possible for the union to treat someone whom it wanted expelled as having lapsed. Rules may be so worded that a tribunal would then be bound to hold that such a person had not been expelled and that the tribunal itself had no jurisdiction to hear the claim for compensation for unreasonable expulsion.
There is a risk that if, by deleting clause 3 (9)(b) it became clear that a member's membership could be terminated without expulsion, and without creating jurisdiction under this clause, the unions could amend their rules to expand the circumstances in which there was deemed to be automatic cessation of membership. That would defeat the object of the clause to which the Government attach considerable importance, because they see in it a means of substantially nullifying the sting of the closed shop. It must be remembered that, under the clause, such lapsing gives rise only to jurisdiction. The clause does not suggest that a union will have been unreasonable in the case of a former member who has deliberately refused to pay his union dues. It goes only to the question of jurisdiction.
It is with that in mind, and in particular having in mind the words that I have repeated from subsection (9)—
For the purpose of this section "—
that, on reflection—and we have given it very careful reflection—we believe that the clause should remain as drafted.

Mr. Leighton: I am sorry to hear what the Minister has said. He may have examples of which I have not heard, but I have not heard of a union, where a member has been willing to pay his union contributions, refusing to accept them and has sought to expel him. It seems a far-fetched example. There may be such cases. I do not know whether the Minister can instance some.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4

COMPENSATION

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 29, leave out from 'declared' to 'to' in line 31.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 5, leave out lines 34 to 39 and insert—
'(2) An application under this section shall be to an industrial tribunal'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments:

No. 99, in page 5, line 37, leave out from 'tribunal' to end of line 39.

No. 101, in page 5, line 40, leave out 'or the Employment Appeal Tribunal'.

No. 102, in page 6, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert
'shall be such as the tribunal considers appropriate compensation for the loss sustained by the applicant'.

No. 103, in page 6, line 13, leave out 'or the Employment Appeal Tribunal'.

No. 104, in page 6, leave out lines 35 to 46.

Mr. Walker: The principal purpose of this batch of amendments is to fill out from the procedures provided for in clause 4 the role of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I shall stick to this one point in view of the hour.
Amongst other things, the clause gives the Employment Appeal Tribunal a function which is other than appellate and makes it a court of first instance. We think that is wrong. It perverts the whole purpose of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. We fear that, having departed from its appellate function—at least in this matter—there will be no end to the primary jurisdictions which may subsequently be conferred on the tribunal.
As I said, in view of the hour, I shall not develop the argument at length. This is a matter about which we expressed concern in Committee and we thought it right to express it again on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Mayhew: The arguments for and against this proposal were fully debated in Committee. I propose to follow the example set by the right hon. Member for

Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and to try, in a sentence or two, to say why the Employment Appeal Tribunal should have the jurisdiction of deciding at first instance what the compensation should be.
The tribunal's jurisdiction arises only if a complaint has been made to the industrial tribunal that somebody has been wrongfully expelled or excluded from a union and the industrial tribunal makes a declaration "Aye" or "Nay". If it holds that there has been a wrongful expulsion and makes a declaration accordingly, there is then time for the union to act upon that declaration and, if so minded, to reinstate the former member. But, if it does not, the proposal is that there shall be a claim for compensation for the loss that has been sustained as a result of being excluded and the loss that is likely to be sustained in future if that exclusion or expulsion is continued. It is a difficult jurisdiction. We feel that it is one that is not likely to arise in many instances, but, when it does arise, it will be important. Because the Employment Appeal Tribunal is staffed by people with plenty of industrial experience, but presided over by a High Court judge of great distinction, Sir Gordon Slynn, its reputation stands extremely high in trades union and other circles, and we felt it right that it should exercise this much more difficult and delicate jurisdiction. At one time we thought that it should be exercised by the High Court, but on reflection, and after consultation, we felt it right that the industrial expertise of the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be used in these circumstances. Therefore, we think that, albeit exceptionally—though not wholly exceptionally because it has a similar jurisdiction in one or two specialised areas elsewhere—it is right that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should exercise that jurisdiction. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say more than that.

Mr. Harold Walker: May I press the Minister on a point that we raised in Committee but to which I do not recall him responding? The clause provides for divided jurisdiction, where the industrial tribunals will take a certain area and the Employment Appeal Tribunal will take the other area. While there can be an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against an industrial tribunal decision, it appears that there is no provision for an appeal against an Employment


Appeal Tribunal decision in respect of its primary jurisdiction responsibilities.

Mr. Mayhew: An appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in respect of its primary jurisdiction responsibilities would be to the Court of Appeal, but it would be only on a point of law and not on fact.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Prior.]

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 6, line 25, leave out from 'exceed' to 'an' in line 32.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 38, in page 6, line 32, leave out 'for the time being'.

No. 40, in page 6, line 33, after '75', insert '(1)'.

No. 39, in page 6, line 34, at end insert—
'(c) in subsection (2) of section 75 of the 1978 Act shall have no application to this section in determining the limits imposed by (b) above.'.

No. 42, in page 6, line 37, leave out from 'exceed' to end of line 46 and insert
'the amount referred to in subsection (7) above.'.

Mr. Walker: I do not intend to detain the House, but this is a matter about which we have continuing concern. While we object to the whole principle embodied in the clause, a matter of special concern is the high level of compensation. We fear that that will induce some individuals, for what may be understandable reasons, to chance their arm and behave in an unreasonable manner calculated to get them expelled from their union in the hope that they could subsequently apply to the industrial tribunal or to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a bid for compensation, which may be generous according to their length of service and the circumstances in which they were expelled. We are talking of sums which run into tens of thousands of pounds.
I shall not go over the examples that were given in Committee. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) described vividly how a person approaching retirement could see an opportunity to gain an amount of money that would launch him into a more easy retirement than might otherwise have been the case, if he could create the circumstances in which he provoked his trade union into behaving in a manner that would subsequently give him grounds on which to go to a tribunal and claim the substantial amounts of money that would be available under the clause. That would be harmful to industrial relations. It is one of the features of the Bill that will be detrimental to good industrial relations, and which should be opposed.

Mr. John Evans: I wish to intervene only briefly. It is essential to put on record what my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has said about those individuals who will seek to take the trade unions for a ride. At this stage, it is essential that the Opposition make it perfectly clear that what the Government are doing, if they are not prepared to accept the amendment, is to create a situation whereby every free-rider in industry will be seeking to make a lot of money out of the trade union movement.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will quote figures to show that in past instances only small amounts of money have been involved. But, in answer to a question from one of his hon. Friends at Question Time today, the Minister made it perfectly clear that we could possibly be talking about sums of £14,000 or £15,000. It is figures such as those to which the characters who operate within British industry will be looking.
Conservative Members should appreciate that certain individuals in British society are nowadays known as "bounty hunters". Such individuals look for firms in which redundancies will be declared in the not too distant future in order to latch on. Of course, such people are not concerned with the State redundancy scheme, but rather with the additional benefits which the trade union movement negotiates on behalf of the workers who are declared redundant.
I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are some very astute characters knocking around industry at present. They will read this clause with some interest, and will recognise that substantial sums of money are potentially involved. It is essential that Conservative Members do not assume that everyone who declares that he has a longstanding, deeply-held personal conviction not to belong to a trade union is interested only in being a non-trade unionist. Such people will be interested in this clause. In the next two or three years, it will be fascinating to read some of the amazing arguments which will be presented to industrial tribunals by individuals who have suddenly travelled various roads to Damascus in order to persuade those tribunals that they have had an amazing conversion and suddenly, because of some deeply-held personal conviction, they do not want to belong to a trade union.
I only seek to put on the record the fact that the Government are giving the go-ahead to every outrageous character in industry, who will try to establish his right to what could potentially be massive compensation, simply because he has no feelings one way or the other for the trade union movement. He will simply seek to make a lot of money as a result of this clause in the Bill.
I wonder whether that is what the Government are seeking to achieve. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that that will not improve industrial relations or the feelings of genuine trade unionists, even if they are not activists. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will come to regret the insertion of this subsection in this clause.

Mr. Mayhew: This clause has nothing to do with "deeply-held personal conviction". That relates to the conscience clause, which has nothing to do with this clause. This clause is connected with compensation for unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. The effect of the amendment is to reduce to a maximum of £5,200 the compensation which can be awarded in that event.
The Bill sets as the maximum for compensation to be awarded for unreasonable exclusion or expulsion the same maximum

which can be awarded for unfair dismissal by an employer. Indeed, if there are grounds for any criticism, they are that the figure ought to be higher. If one is sacked from one's job by an employer, one can go and get a job somewhere else. If a person is sacked from his union and his industry is organised in a closed shop, he may very well be deprived of the ability to earn a living in the only trade he knows. That is why, I suspect, there are grounds for criticising us for not pitching the maximum high enough.
12.45 am
Everything that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) has said might have been argued in defence of employers. It might have been said that the bounty hunters would go round trying to exploit the jurisdiction to get compensation for unfair dismissal from an employer, when the provisions were first introduced in 1971. I never heard that type of argument being advanced from the Labour Benches. The tribunals are well able to spot a useless case. We hope, before long, by changes in their administrative procedures, to enable them to filter out the really useless case before it gets off the ground.
What we are proposing to do is to say "Very well, if you consider that you have been unreasonably expelled from a union and suffered loss in consequence, you may go to the tribunals—first the industrial tribunal and then the employment appeal tribunal—and claim compensation from the union." We do not think that it could be right, when the maximum for unfair dismissal by an employer is £16,000, to say that the maximum under the terms of this amendent shall be only £5,200, if it is established that a person has been unreasonably expelled from his union.
As I said at Question Time today, it is rare for a claim to reach anything like the maximum. The median compensation award for unfair dismissal is about £375. There may well be circumstances in which someone is expelled from a union and is able to show that he will suffer considerable ongoing loss of earnings. Such cases will be rare, but they should be catered for. That is why we feel entirely confident in advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: Once again the hon. and learned Gentleman has trailed this issue of pending changes in the


administrative procedures of the tribunal across the debate. That is wholly irrelevant to the many matters under the Bill which will be dealt with by the industrial tribunals. We are entitled to know what changes the Government propose to introduce and when, and when we shall have an opportunity to debate them, so that the House can make up its mind on these pending changes. We are entitled to more than these coy hints that the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps dropping. I hope that he will give us more information about this matter before we leave the subject.

Mr. Mayhew: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the right hon. Gentleman. We said in the working papers published last summer that we wished to make changes in the administrative procedures of the industrial tribunals so that, for example, costs could be more readily awarded against an unsuccessful claimant where it was unreasonable that the claim should have been brought. We also believe that there should be a procedure whereby the tribunals can seek to filter out the claim that appears to have little chance of success. Of course, the claimant should have every opportunity to make himself heard. Such changes should be made to cut down the number of cases brought for unfair dismissal which have virtually no chance of success but which take up a great deal of time and money and cause a great deal of administrative inconvenience. That is very much in the interests, in this case, of a trade union in the parallel jurisdiction with which these two clauses are concerned. That was the relevance of introducing it, albeit at a late hour—

Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. and learned Member accept that there is a difference here in that a frivolous trade union claimant will not be supported by trade union officials? I can assure the Minister that that is the position. Fulltime union officials are too busy to advise claimants with bad cases to approach the tribunal. That still leaves such claimants free to approach the tribunal themselves. When a person is seeking to prove unfair dismissal by a trade union he will undoubtedly be assisted by Right-wing lawyers looking for easy pickings from the trade unions.

Mr. Mayhew: That goes to the root of the policy of the two clauses. The Government believe that it is right that a person should be able to claim for compensation if he has been wrongfully expelled from his union. If a person working in a firm where a closed shop is operated—clauses 3 and 4 relate only to closed shops—loses his union card, he loses his ability to work. Everything that was said by the hon. Member for Newton goes to the root of the policy of the clauses. I understand why he is opposed to the clauses, but I disagree with him. I should have thought that it would be in the interests of the trade union to have a mechanism to filter out the bounty hunter or the bum case that he has in mind. If he would prefer that it did not apply to trade unions, no doubt that could be arranged.

Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that if an individual is expelled from a trade union for whatever reason he has a right under common law to appeal against the decision of the trade union in the courts? There are a number of cases on record where individuals have appealed to have their union cards restored on the grounds of natural justice, and the courts have made awards in their favour. But the Government are setting up new legislation that will allow the individual who regards himself is wrongly dismissed to ignore the courts and the claims of natural justice because he will be interested in the compensation arguments that have been propounded in the clause. Is not that what the bounty hunters are seeking?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is saying that at present the courts have jurisdiction in at least two circumstances if a person is expelled from a union. They have jurisdiction if he has not been given an opportunity to hear the complaint against him, or if he has not been given an opportunity to explain his story—that is, where the rules of natural justice have not been complied with. They also have jurisdiction if the expulsion from the union has taken place not in compliance with the rules of the union. But that does not wholly meet the justice of the circumstances.
There are also circumstances in which a union complies with the rules of natural justice and with its own rules but none the less considers that a person should be


expelled—in circumstances that are unreasonable. I agree that the tribunal will have to decide what is unreasonable. We propose that there shall be a code of practice in respect of the closed shop—as has been made clear many times—which will seek to give guidance in those circumstances, and which will be of value to all concerned. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with this separate jurisdiction, which will award compensation for unreasonable, as distinct from unlawful, expulsion from a trade union.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 7, line 2, after 'law', insert 'or fact'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in page 10, line 43, clause 9, at end insert—
'(4) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on any question of law or fact arising from any decision of, or arising in any proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this section.'.

Mr. Walker: The amendment arises from clause 4, but we cannot ignore the way in which that clause hangs on clause 3 and follows from it. I shall quickly remind the House that clause 3 gives a person who feels that he has been unfairly or unreasonably excluded or expelled from a trade union the right to go to a tribunal for a determination to be made. If he is successful, he can ask the Employment Appeal Tribunal to make a compensation award.
If on that person's application to the tribunal under clause 3 he fails, he can appeal. Clause 3(8) provides that
An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on any question of law or fact arising from any decision of, or arising in any proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this section.
It seems clear that almost invariably the appellant will be an applicant who has failed following a decision of the tribunal in favour of the union.
I direct the attention of the House to the parallel provision in clause 4 for an appeal against the determination of the amount of compensation that has been awarded. Subsection (9) states that
An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law "—

and only on a question of law—
arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this section.
As I suggested that it would be almost inevitable that it would be the person appealing against the trade union under clause 3, equally inevitably it would be a union that would be appealing against a decision under clause 4. However, we find that for some odd, inexplicable and clearly inequitable reason we have appeals under clause 3 being determined on questions of law or fact while under clause 4 the grounds of appeal are substantially narrowed by excluding appeals on questions of fact. That seems inexplicable and unfair. The appeals should be on all fours under both clauses, which hang together.

1 am

Amendment No. 71 seeks to remedy an omission in clause 9 in so far as no right of appeal arises out of its provisions. Where a person or trade union has successfully applied to a tribunal and is awarded compensation, the employer may require the person or trade union to be joined in the proceedings so that that person or trade union may have to pay part of or all the compensation that is awarded. There is no provision for a person or trade union—or the employer for that matter—who feels that the tribunal has wrongly directed itself to have a right of appeal. We believe that a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law or fact should be set down in the statute.

Unless the Government can explain to the satisfaction of the House why no such right of appeal is written into the Bill, they should either accept amendment No. 71 in toto or alternatively tell us what they propose to provide by way of a right of appeal.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be an appeal against a finding of fact. Will he concede that that would be an almost unique provision in English law and that as a general principle there is no appeal against a finding of fact in any court?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to what I said or read the Bill. As I said, clause 3


provides for an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on grounds of law or fact. Under clause 3 there is an appeal by an individual against a decision in favour of the trade union on grounds of law or fact. Under clause 4 the appeal will almost invariably be by a trade union and it will be an appeal only on grounds of law. I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has now woken up sufficiently to read that part of the Bill.
If it is sensible to make that provision in clause 3, it is equally sensible to make it in clause 4 and clause 9. We are suggesting that the Government should put clauses 3, 4 and 9 on all fours.

Mr. Mayhew: Clauses 3 and 4 run together, and a person can appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal if the industrial tribunal has made a declaration that he has been unreasonably expelled or excluded from his union. I do not know why the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) says that it will almost always be an applicant who has failed before the industrial tribunal who will wish to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
What we are talking about first is someone who has either got his declaration or has failed to get a declaration, or has had a declaration made against him as a trade union of unreasonable expulsion.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that it is unusual for there to be jurisdiction for appeals on questions of fact, but he will know that one can appeal on questions of fact from the magistrates' court to the Crown court and always could do so from the magistrates court to quarter sessions. It is not unique.
There is a difficult and new jurisdiction in the question whether someone has been unreasonably excluded or expelled from a union and we feel that the industrial tribunal is the right body, because of its tripartite structure and its industrial expertise, to deal with that. However, because of the difficulty, delicacy and importance of the issue, there ought to be an appeal on questions of fact, as well as on points of law, to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the contrast with the provisions of the Bill under which the industrial tribunal makes an award of compensation. If a person gets a declaration from an industrial tribunal that he has been unreasonably excluded or expelled, time is allowed for the union to decide what to do about that. The person cannot take any steps towards getting compensation for a period of four weeks.
Let us assume that the union agrees to admit that person to membership. It will be open to him to go to the industrial tribunal and say that he has been out of work for four weeks and wants to be compensated for lost earnings. The tribunal has the power to award that compensation. Against that part of its jurisdiction, there is a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal only on an issue of law, and not on a question of fact. The reason is that it is a much simpler and less important job.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we do not want a flood of appeals on questions of facts, and the latter part of the jurisdiction is much simpler and less important and is one which the industrial tribunal is quite capable of getting right. Therefore, the appeal should be on a question of law only.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot keep riding off on generalised assertions without producing any reasoned arguments. Suppose that the individual who goes to a tribunal for compensation is able to trot out what is seen, after the tribunal has made its decision, to be a load of codswallop about how much bonus and overtime he has lost. It may not be possible to examine such details at the time and the union may be lumbered with forking out money that ought not to be paid.
The Minister says that the union should have no right to go back to the tribunal and say "This man told a load of damn lies and we have the employer's accounts to prove it." I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not overlooked that aspect.

Mr. Mayhew: It is not overlooked, but there must be an end, at a reasonable time, to legislation—just as there must be an end, at a reasonable time, to debates.
Labour Members are always pointing out to me that one of the advantages of belonging to a union is that members have at their disposal the expertise of the union's legal department. When a union is at the sharp end of a claim for compensation for unreasonable exclusion or expulsion, it can be relied upon to use its lawyers to go through the process of examining the case made against it.
It is not too difficult to test the evidence that may be brought forward by the claimant that he has been kept out of a job and that, although he was earning £100 a week before he got the sack, he has been earning nothing since his dismissal. That is the nature of it. It is very simple. There is no injustice there.
The effect of the amendment is to create a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on fact as well as law regarding industrial tribunal proceedings in which a party has been joined under the provisions of clause 9. Clause 9 deals with joinder. The only question that arises is whether there ought to be a right of appeal on questions of fact, so we are assuming that the industrial tribunal has said "Yes, we have dealt with your claim. We think that the union has had a part in the responsibility for your getting the sack, because we find that it exerted pressure upon the employer to sack you because you were not a member of the union. We find that the union must contribute 30 per cent. of the compensation."
Should there be a right of appeal on questions of fact there or not? The Government believe that there should not be. This is a relatively simple matter. Appeal on fact as well as law is provided for under clause 3, because such cases may involve extremely delicate questions of judgment on which it would be advantageous to facilitate a complete re-hearing of the case by the more senior tribunal.
But no such question arises, we believe, on joinder, and there is the further point that it is not easy to see how there could be appeal on questions of fact on the question of contribution and not on compensation for unfair dismissal more generally. There is not, of course, in that case. There is no need for such a change.

Industrial tribunals are extremely skilled in assessing compensation and no difficulties need be anticipated. The only proper questions for appeal in such cases are, we believe, questions of law.

Amendment negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Mather.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

GROVE MATERNITY HOSPITAL, BARTON-ON-SEA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Robert Adley: I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends are leaving. I implore them to stay so that they may hear about this very important matter. Even if it does not concern their constituencies, it deeply concerns mine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who has taken a most helpful attitude throughout the many months during which the problem has been under discussion.
The debate tonight on the proposal by the Hampshire area health authority to close the maternity hospital at Barton-on-Sea has nothing whatever to do with the current debate on public expenditure. The Grove, as the hospital is known, has for many years been a target for the administrative machine in the part of the world that I represent. It would be out of order if I were to refer to constituents who were here to listen to the debate but I can assure the Minister that this is a matter of overriding importance to very many of my constituents.
I wish to deploy four points in my argument. First, there is dissatisfaction with the role and impartiality of the community health council. Secondly, we believe that there has been an unsatisfactory and an inadequate consultation process. Thirdly, we believe that we have been regaled with unsubstantiated facts of a financial and a medical nature. Fourthly, we believe that there is, or will shortly be, a need for a ministerial intervention at the appropriate stage if the


community health council does not do its job, namely, to reflect the overwhelming balance of local opinion.
I want to look first at the role of community health councils. I have a number of circulars which have been issued by the Department over the years and from which I intend to quote briefly, but I shall not weary the Minister or the House by reading out the numbers and references to them. But in 1974 a document on community health services said that they
will provide a new means of representing the local community's interests in the health services to those responsible for managing them.
Thereafter, in another document listing the features which were considered to be relevant, one out of many was if there was a considerable seasonal fluctuation. This is one of the points that I wish to mention briefly in the debate. Living in and representing a constituency which has a large influx of people in the summer season, I can say that this is a very relevant factor and one of many which have been totally ignored by the community health council in its deliberations.
The community health council has a direct relationship to the area health authority. However, when the community health councils were being set up, my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), then a Minister in the DHSS, said on 15 May 1973:
One advantage of the community health council is that it is totally free and independent of the managerial role."—[Official Report, 15 May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 694.]
I do not know what has happened elsewhere, but that is nonsense in my constituency. The membership of the community health council was created by the regional health authority. The area health authority has made a proposal to close the Grove and the community health council either has to agree or disagree with the area health authority.
Any suggestion that the community health council is totally free and independent of the managerial role of the Health Service is little less than nonsense. That is widely believed in my constituency. At a recent public meeting in my constituency, which was attended by a very large number of people, Dr. Sandy Cattanach—a well-known and respected local doctor—stated:

If you believe the decision has not already been made, you'll believe anything.
There is a widespread belief in my constituency that the decision has been made. I hope that the Minister will disabuse my constituents and me of that belief. The administration of the area health authority wants to concentrate all the funds in the area on Southampton general hospital. That is the nub of this problem. The Lymington Times recently had the sub-headline:
£80,000 'saving' to help pay for Southampton Unit".
That sums up people's feelings.
My second point is that of the unsatisfactory consultation process. I pay tribute to Mrs. Carol Warne, leader of the protest group. She forced the need to have a public meeting on the community health council. The community health council now says that it had intended to hold a meeting, but it did not spend a penny on advertising. Mrs. Warne and her colleagues had to spend their money on advertising a public meeting that would attract the public's attention to the proposals of the area health authority.
Turning to the role of the community health council in the consultative process, I quote from another of the Department's documents:
It will be for each CHC to decide how best to fulfil its role of representing to the relevant Area Authority the interests of users of health services in the district".
We do not know what is meant by "district". We suspect that what we regard as our district and locality is not what the community health council has in mind. When it speaks of the district, it is speaking of the wider area. The name of the district is Southampton and south-west Hampshire. Southampton will always get its way because it is numerically more powerful.
I have received scores of letters on this subject. I shall not weary the House by reading long passages from them. However, in addition to the letters of protest that form part of the so-called consultation process, Drs. Cattanach, Ball, Tuddenham and Badham—all local doctors—came to that meeting and made their views known. Mrs. Warne and her colleagues have given me a petition that is signed by more than 5,000 people. The New Forest district council environmental


services committee held a special emergency meeting last week and passed a unanimous resolution opposing the closure of the Grove. That local authority stretches from suburban Southampton to within a few miles of Salisbury.
My hon. Friend the Minister may think that I have received representations only from my constituents. I advise him that only tonight I have had a conversation with staff midwife May, who for five years has been at Southampton general hospital's maternity unit. Since last month she has been at Barton. This evening she spoke to me on the telephone and said that the Southampton unit is hard pressed, even with peripheral units such as Barton, to deal with patients. She said that the chief concern of the postnatal ward at Southampton was finding beds to send mothers to. She did not like to contemplate what it would be like if the Grove was closed. I understand that the staff at Southampton maternity unit are not in favour of the closure either.
Finally I shall quote Mr. Gillibrand, a consultant gynaecologist at Southampton general hospital who wrote to me on 3 March saying:
I do wish there was more that I could do in return to save the Grove Maternity Hospital in Barton-on-Sea. In the course of the last few years, during which it has been under threat of closure, I have, firstly as Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and later as Chairman of the Maternity Services Health Care Planning Team, helped to achieve a stay of execution. I do believe it serves a most useful purpose, particularly in that area, which is so far from the maternity departments at Bournemouth or Southampton.
That is the nub of this problem. It is about 25 miles from Barton-on-Sea or New Milton to Southampton, and about 10 miles to Boscombe. While it is proposed to close the Grove, there is no proposal to close either the maternity unit at Romsey, or the Fenwick at Lyndhurst, both of which are many miles nearer to Southampton, and do not involve a long and arduous journey across the New Forest. That journey is fine in the middle of the night in the middle of winter, but at midday in mid-summer presents a most serious problem. It can take between an hour and an hour and a half.
I turn to the unsubstantiated financial and medical facts. Doctors locally have confirmed that if the Grove is closed there

will be inevitable side effects. There will be a substantial increase in ambulance costs, and patient travel costs. Another DHSS circular recommends that one of the criteria which the CHCs should take account of is the hospital visiting arrangements for patients. The closure of the Grove will present very real problems for many people, particularly those who are not so well off, in getting from Barton or New Milton to Southampton.
Another by-product of the closure will be a substantial increase in the number of home confinements. I understand that this is contrary to DHSS policy. There will be more ambulance births, and this point was made abundantly clear by Dr. Ball at the recent meeting to which I have already referred.
Also, there will undoubtedly be an increase in the risk to the health of pregnant mothers, particularly those who may have complications immediately prior to the birth of their babies. One New Milton baby was born recently in the waiting room at Southampton general hospital. Even in the winter, the travelling time was insufficient to get from New Milton to Southampton and have the baby delivered safely. Even now, six babies a year are delivered in the ambulances in spite of the fact that the Grove is still open and many local mothers are still able to go there. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the journey through the New Forest, but if he does not, I can assure him that it is a real problem.
I shall quote two letters that I have received. One is from a lady in Banbury, a Mrs. Susan Morris, who says:
Had it not been for the ready availability of that maternity facility and its most expert staff, I may have lost my five-week premature baby. I had approximately 30 minutes warning of the impending birth—30 minutes to call a doctor, (I was a visitor on holiday in the area) get an ambulance and be admitted to a maternity hospital. Had it not been for the existence of Barton, this would not have been possible because there is no other such facility in the close proximity of Milton, Barton or Highcliffe.
That is undoubtedly true. If that lady had had to go to Southampton it is quite clear that she would never have made it. One of my constituents, Julia Villers, wrote to me from Hordle. She says:
On the afternoon of 6 January I began to have strong contractions lasting 10 minutes. By 8 pm they were stronger, yet, still at 10-minute intervals. I decided to ring Southampton where a sister told me to hang on


till the contractions were coming every five minutes. I was somewhat anxious to hear this advice, bearing in mind the 20-mile drive to the hospital. By 10 pm when I felt I could bear the pain no longer, I again rang the hospital, almost in desperation. A second sister answered my call. I explained the position again, and when I told her where we lived she did agree that I should make my way into Southampton. The drive was quite a nightmare and my husband and I were only thankful that it was late on Sunday evening, and therefore there was very little traffic on the roads.
I will not weary the House with Mrs. Villiers' whole letter, but she says that her son was born 12 minutes after she was taken to the delivery room.
The area health authority says that £80,000 is the cost of running the Grove. The assumption it puts forward is that by closing the Grove the sum of £80,000 will be saved. This is nonsense. No account is taken of the extra ambulance costs. I am told that this is not a relevant factor. No account has been taken of the additional travel cost. No figures has been provided for me, the local press or anyone else.
The area health authority refuses to supply any individual costs for Southampton general maternity unit. Mr. Shaw, the district administrator of the Hampshire area health authority has, however, admitted that the cost of patient care at Southampton general hospital is double that of the hospital at Barton-on-Sea. If one is talking about an £80,000 so-called saving, where is anything mentioned about the cost of caring for the 450 women and babies presently looked after at Barton? So far as I can deduce, these women and babies have not been accounted for as an obvious offsetting cost that will have to be borne if the Grove is closed.
Those who are advocating closure are the same people who provide the figures. We know, from experience in this House, that officialdom can cook the books when it wants to prove something. British Rail has managed, over the years, to close innumerable branch lines by the old tactic of reducing the service, increasing the cost for a 12-month period and then, after 12 months, pointing to the increased cost of running the line and the fall in passenger revenues as reasons for deciding to close the line.
I have no confidence that the figures with which we have been presented are

accurate. There has been no opportunity to challenge them. However, now that the matter comes to be challenged in the House of Commons, there is a fluttering in the dovecotes of the area health authority and the community health council. I understand that feelers hav already been put to the objectors suggesting that if the Grove is closed, a maternity unit might be built at Lymington hospital. That is a ridiculous suggestion. What will be the cost of building a whole new maternity unit when there is a perfectly good unit working and operating five miles away from Lymington hospital? Anyway, local residents are having to raise £150,000, by public appeal, to keep Lymington hospital in existence.
My last point concerns ministerial intervention. I realise that this is a matter of timing. I do not expect my hon. Friend to say tonight, in the middle of the consultation process, that he will agree immediately to call in the decision. There are some unusual factors that I must mention. Area health authorities are being abolished. The Bill is before Parliament. There is no doubt that, by the end of this Parliamentary Session, legislation will be on the statute book to wind up area health authorities. But the Hampshire area health authority, whose dastardly proposal is the subject of this discussion, seems determined to close the Grove as a final act of showing its power. The Community health council seems to support the area health authority. It is behaving in an unattractive manner contrary to the spirit by which community health councils and the whole Health Service administration was established.
I wish to refer to the timing of the closure. I am conscious of the fact that I do not want to take my hon. Friend's time. A document from his Department in October 1975 said:
In general, responsibility for determining the closure or change of use of health buildings rests with the Area Health Authority, subject to the formal agreement of the Community Health Council. Where sufficient local agreement exists, it should be possible to move from a proposal to close (or change use) to actual closure or change of use within a period of six months.
That happens where local agreement exists. It would be impossible to find a situation where there is less local agreement to a proposal than exists in the present situation. A closure is proposed


to take place after the area health authority, which is making the proposal, will have had its death-knell pronounced by Parliament and when there is universal agreement that the administration of the Health Service is over-burdened. There is a clear case, in this instance, for my hon. Friend to recognise the peculiarity of the circumstances. Can there be intervention before consultation is complete? How much consultation is the community health council proposing to indulge in? So far as I know, it has not consulted the town council of New Milton and Barton, the biggest population centre in my constituency. It has not consulted formally local general practitioners, nor does it intend to. I do not suppose that it has consulted, or wants to consult, the staff of the Southampton maternity unit. If the council is to do any job, it is honour bound to have consultations. The White Paper states:
The council's basic job will be to represent to the AHA the interests of the public in the health service in its district.
That should be repeated. That job is not being done properly by the community health council. The Minister has powers to call in the proposal, even if the community health council disagrees with the area health authority.
Barton is a country area. It is not understood by the Southampton urban administrators who want to create a world of office hour births. That, frankly, is an unreal and unpleasant ambition.
The Grove is a superb, friendly, efficient, small, cost-effective part of the community. Sister Knott and her staff are highly respected. It is the type of small establishment which I understand the Government have come to believe is of value to local communities. We are not getting a fair or straight deal from the community health council.
The chairman of the CHC wrote to me about a different matter. She wants to keep her job and for the community health councils to remain. In a letter of 20 March she said that the community health councils
are an important part of the democratic process and enable local communities to have a vigorous independent voice in the provision of health care.
If that is true there can be no doubt about the conclusion that the council should come to if it pretends to do an

honest job in putting the views of local people about the proposed closure to the area health authority.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on securing the debate about the future of the Barton on Sea maternity home, otherwise known as "The Grove". He has been most assiduous in seeking to protect the interests of his constituents. He has delivered—if that is the right word—a well-researched and cogent case. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out as a matter of record the background to the debate and to give an account of the procedures that must be followed when the closure of any hospital is proposed.
No decision has yet been taken to close the Barton on Sea maternity home, nor indeed is any final decision imminent. I shall refer later to the various stages that must be gone through before a hospital can be closed. If local agreement cannot be reached—in particular if the local community health council objects—the final stage in the process will involve a decision by Ministers in my Department. It would not be right for me to pre-empt tonight that decision or, indeed any decision of the relevant health authorities. My hon. Friend acknowledged that.
I should also stress that I am well aware of the dedicated work done by the staff of this hospital, both now and in the past. I am aware of the strength of their feelings in this issue. Any proposal to close this home of course in no way reflects adversely on the high standard of care that I know they have always given their patients.
My hon. Friend has rightly been concerned that any proposal to close The Grove—and I stress again that we are no more than dealing with a proposal-should not be rushed through by the Hampshire area health authority without adequate consultation and without due regard to the staff of this hospital and the interests of the local community. I can assure him that the proper procedures laid down by my Department must and will be followed.
Equally, I know that he is concerned that the interests of his constituents might not receive due consideration because of their proximity to Southampton and its preponderance of population. I have no doubt that his activity in this matter has ensured that there is little risk of this and that the voices of his constituents in Lymington, Milford-on-Sea, New Milton, Hordle, Barton-on-Sea and other areas are being loud and clear.
Any proposal to close Barton-on-Sea maternity home has to be considered in the context of the total maternity and gynaecology services provided in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire health district and surrounding localities. A major, but not the only, factor is the opening in 1981 of the new maternity and gynaecology unit at Southampton—20 miles from Barton-in-Sea. This unit cost £8 million and will I am told contain all the facilities to provide the highest possible standards of care both for obstetrics and gynaecology.
Once this new unit has opened the area health authority proposes a number of changes in bed distribution for maternity and gynaecology services in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire district. One of these consequences is the proposed closure of the 11 maternity beds and seven gynaecology beds at Barton-on-sea.
The consultative paper issued by the area health authority gives in part the following reasons for wanting to close the Barton on Sea maternity Home's maternity facilities. It says that the home is the least used of the maternity units peripheral to the central unit at the Southampon general hospital in terms of the number of births, the number of transferred cases, and the level of bed occupancy.
These factors, it claims, combine to render Barton the least economical of the peripheral units. I note what my hon. Friend said on that subject. The paper states that recruitment of staff to the home has proved difficult in the past and there is no reason to assume that this situation will improve. There is also said to be growing professional concern that the existing staff are unable to make full use of their midwifery skills in view of the low number of deliveries. In 1979 there was an average of about one delivery per week at the home and the total annual

number of births in the hospital has fallen progressively from 104 in 1975 to about 50 last year.
The area health authority states that the desirability of retaining a facility in the western New Forest has been carefully considered, but it feels that there is no justification for retaining beds at the Grove simply to provide for mothers who give birth very quickly. Indeed, in the authority's view, it is questionable whether this type of isolated unit is appropriate for such cases. Additionally, the health authority draws attention to the wider and more comprehensive service that is already available at the Royal Victoria Hospital and the more than adequate spare capacity that exists there.
It would not be right for me to comment at this stage on the validity of these points other than to say that I am well aware of he strength of feeling that can be aroused among both mothers-to-be and professional staff by proposals to vary maternity services. Factors such as maximising safety, providing a friendly, homely and sympathetic environment, and the convenience of patients and visitors, do not always pull in the same direction and have to be balanced locally with tact and sensitivity.
I know that many authorities are now searching for ways to save money, and, as a last resort, closure may seem to be the only option. But my fellow Ministers and I have repeatedly made it clear that we will not agree to permanent closure as a way out of short-term difficulties.
As I have said before, permanent closures in some areas reduce the Health Services's precious stock of hospitals at a time when the country can ill afford to make good the loss and the cumulative effect of a number of small closures can be substantial. Thus we are quite firm that permanent closure should occur only as part of an agreed long-term plan for the development or rationalisation of health services in a particular area.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he assure me that we can have access to the facts about the costs of Southampton general hospital maternity unit? I think that it is monstrous that these have been hidden from us. Can he make sure that we have the facts?

Sir G. Young: What I propose to do is make sure that the area health authority and the relevant officers in the district have copies of the report of the speech which my hon. Friend has just made so that they can read his criticisms of the statistics that have been put forward. I hope that they will respond to his hard-hitting speech and come up with the underlying facts which enabled them to put forward the statistics in their paper.
If I may revert to what I was saying, the health authorities in Wessex have a firm policy towards maternity services and their 1979–80 regional plan stated their intention to provide facilities to permit all mothers to have their babies in hospital, preferably in district general hospital based units.
To revert to the procedure that has to be adopted, the area health authority must issue a formal consultation document setting out its proposals to the relevant community health council and local authorities involved and to staff and professional interests. Three months are allowed for comment and all comments must then be passed to the CHC for any further observations it may wish to make. I understand that the CHC has not come to a decision on this proposal.
If the CHC does not object to closure, the AHA considers all the comments on its proposal and decides whether to close. If the CHC does object it has to submit a counter proposal to the area health authority. If the authority still wishes to proceed, it must then refer the matter to the regional health authority. If that authority supports the case for closure

the case is submitted to Ministers for a final decision.
We have made it clear that, in cases where we are called on to intervene, Ministers will not support any case for closure unless it can be clearly demonstrated to be in the best interests of local health services and the community they serve.
But we are, of course, as yet a long way from that point in this case. The area health authority has asked for comments on its consultation paper by 19 May. The CHC has been asked to make its final recommendations by the end of June and the area health authority will consider the matter at its July meeting. The procedures are designed to be as scrupulously fair as possible and very careful consideration will be given to comments received at all points in the procedure.
I hope that I have allayed some of my hon. Friend's concern by setting out the procedures that have to be followed. I will draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my hon. Friend's request that this matter should be called in.
Additionally I know that all concerned will give full consideration to the points that have been expressed here tonight, especially those that demonstrate the strength of local feeling on this issue. I say again how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Two o'clock.